This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
@FtttG, couldn't reply in the wellness thread, since it's CW-adjacent. You wrote in your blog post:
It doesn't matter whether Ross was clipped by Good's car or not. If I shoot at you and miss, you are allowed to shoot back at me. Even if I shoot at something in your general direction and you think I'm shooting at you, you are allowed to shoot back at me.
Earlier in the blog post, you wrote:
This is the only standard. Just like it doesn't matter which one was the better or worse person overall, it doesn't matter why Good accelerated her car and whether she hit Ross or not and if she missed was it because she had poor aim or Ross was the dodgeball champion. The only real answers for the jury to give are if a reasonable person working as a law enforcement officer can interpret the car lurching in his direction as an attack and if shooting the driver is a reasonable action if you have just a split second to decide.
For purposes of a potential trial against Ross, I agree. For purposes of the overall culture war, I'm not so sure.
You can bet that the anti-ICE crowd will use every piece of evidence they can find to make Good look like a good person. In fact, the blog post you link to has a picture of Good at the top which makes her look feminine and somewhat attractive. On the day of the shooting, she looked much more like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian.
If one side is going to marshal all the evidence they can find for purposes of the Court of Public Opinion, the other side can hardly be blamed for doing the same thing.
At this point, I have to ask if we watched the same video. Good's partner was the one loudly berating and mocking the ICE agents, while Good herself was, for the most part, sitting in her car and smirking. She was being obnoxious, but I can't say I saw anything "aggressive" in her demeanour, prior to her pressing the accelerator.
As to "looking" like a lesbian: she was dressed appropriately for the Minnesota climate.
Serious question: In which of the following images does Renee Good look more like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian.
(1) The picture you posted on your blog; or
(2) This picture:
https://ibb.co/PZXRny2y
To be clear, I am NOT asking if the second picture makes her look angry; or aggressive; or like a lesbian. I am asking which picture makes her look MORE like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian.
Very simple question: (1) or (2).
Follow-up questions: Which of the two pictures is more flattering? Which of the two pictures is more relevant to the subject matter under discussion?
Yes, I agree that in the second photo she looks more like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian. But she doesn't look much like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian, and I think your phrasing was a bit weaselly. For any two photos of Beyoncé, she will look "more" like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian in one of them than the other: that doesn't imply that she particularly looks like a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian in either of them.
Of course the first one is more flattering. But I don't think it's remotely indicative of media bias that most outlets chose to use a nice photo of Good when reporting about her, rather than a still frame extracted from a video taken seconds before her death. Even the New York Times used a very flattering photo of Charlie Kirk in their obituary for him, and not, say a photo of him immediately after or immediately prior to him being shot, which would have been "more relevant to the subject matter under discussion".
For what it may be worth, the second photo pings my "butch" radar. And I think that if you could show the two photos to Americans who didn't know the context and culture war issues, most would agree that the woman depicted in the second photo is MUCH more likely to be a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian.
I'm talking about your bias, not media bias. Ironically, the sort of photo you posted in your blog post is typically NOT admissible in criminal trials, except in some states which have passed "Victim Life Photo" statutes. I don't know if Minnesota has such a statute in place, but I tend to doubt it given that it's more conservative states which have passed these kinds of laws.
In short, I'm pretty confident that the photo you posted in your article would be inadmissible as evidence in a hypothetical trial of the shooter. At a minimum, it is totally irrelevant to Ross' guilt or innocence. Certainly at least as irrelevant as Good's (possible) criminal history.
(As far as media bias in photo selection goes, let's just say the whole situation with Trayvon Martin has heavily informed my views on this issue.)
Anyway, it seems that in arguing that Good's (alleged) criminal history would be inadmissible at trial and therefore should not be considered by the public, you simultaneously include pro-Good evidence which would likely be inadmissible at trial. One example is the photo at the top. Another example is Good's intentions. (" if so, did she do so intentionally, or through negligence? ")
As a result, it's hard to take your blog post seriously.
I'm open to the idea that the photo of Good used by many publications wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial, although I think you're being a bit melodramatic regarding how "flattering" the photo in question is. It's just a photo of her standing on a beach and smiling: it's not like she's volunteering at a soup kitchen or treating malarial children or something. And please explain to me how the question "if Good struck Ross, did she do so intentionally or through negligence?" would be inadmissible in a criminal trial. By definition, a question is not "evidence".
So you concede it's totally irrelevant to Ross' guilt or innocence?
In your view, is there a big difference between the two photos? If you think there isn't a big difference, would you mind swapping in the second photo on your blog post?
I was talking about evidence of her intentions. The question you pose in your blog post suggests that in your view, such evidence is directly relevant.
Suppose the prosecutor said something like this in his opening statement: "You are going to see evidence that the Defendant gunned down a woman in cold blood who was merely trying to get away"
In that case, I'm pretty sure that at a minimum, the defense would be entitled to a jury charge along the following lines: "In deciding whether the shooting was justified, you should not consider Ms. Good's intent. What matters is whether the Defendant reasonably believed that he faced a grave threat of death or serious injury."
I don't understand the question you're asking me. "Is this photo of Good irrelevant to her guilt or innocence?" Yes, did I ever suggest otherwise?
No, I don't think there's a big difference between the two. I used the photo I did because numerous news outlets were using that photo.
Yes, I would mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link