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 -
You can literally see the agent draw his gun and shoot the guy in the back. I'm not sure what part of this you think is defensible.
Edit: @ minute 1:00 you can see the agent in the middle reach and pull his gun from his holster. The victim appears to be kneeling resisting arrest with multiple agents holding him down. At minute 1:01 that agent points his gun at the victim, and then it is blocked from view by another agent, milliseconds later you hear shots. The victim is still on his knees, it looks like one hand is supporting himself on the ground. His other hand is by his side.
The question isn't my thought, but Zephyr's thought- which notes major gaps in the evidence ('it isn't possible to tell if he drew a weapon,' the 1:00 mark which is compatible with a defensible shoot) that undercuts its value as evidence to form an opinion off of.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
I have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot. I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it. I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group> Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?
Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?
Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?
Sure.
Nope.
Aye.
Indeed.
Now, that's four answers for you, and so I do believe you still owe four answers in turn. However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided. If you need more time, I'll refrain from any more responses so you don't feel a need to hurry and deflect. Take your time.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
I'm not avoiding, you launched in to a low effort attack on me rather than a discussion of my ideas. I can answer yours with the same level of effort you put into answering mine.
They were considered.
Aye.
Sure.
I believe speaking plainly is a rule on this site, stop trying to lead me into the alley, I'm just not interested.
Oh, hey, you seem to have tried to dodge the original question. Again. What a surprise- who could have seen that coming? You even took more time to avoid answer it than it would have taken to answer. I do appreciate the commitment to the 'I'm not avoiding' evasion, though that sort of Marvel-esque irony is a bit dated.
Thankfully though, you did take the bait for brevity and answered the others. Let others make of them what they will, while we can move on to the question you may still try to evade.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
So definitely a bad faith troll, trying to elicit an emotional reaction. I do always fall for it.
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