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 -
Did they? The DHS statement was that "DHS law enforcement has no record of this incident." A smashed-up DHS tail light, and a protestor with a broken rib, but apparently that's just another day ending in 'y' to everyone involved? Unless the first shooter happened to be one of the same officers from a week and a half before, by the time Pretti was killed he'd be just some guy to them again.
How did nobody involved in that first incident decide to make an arrest or file a report? Apparently that rib was broken while Pretti was tackled and pinned by five agents, but the agents afterward "quickly released him at the scene". I get that arresting people involves paperwork and isn't nearly as fun as breaking bones, but it is the standard approved method for getting criminals off the streets! To touch back on the topic of the original post: if our officers are going to act like Freikorps, then to reflect that status their uniforms don't need to be better, they ought to be worse!
Who would prosecute the arrest and who would on the jury? I get a sense that it would be nearly impossible to get a conviction in Minnesota. This may just be me being paranoid but I feel like jury nullification would be an issue.
You're definitely not paranoid here. Anything done against federal officers would be a federal offense, so finding a prosecutor shouldn't be hard, but getting a fair jury might be trickier.
Even ending with jury nullification would probably be better than what actually happened, though. At least the arrests would get threats (whether to the officers' vehicles or to themselves, in hindsight) off the streets temporarily, and the optics of "Minnesotans think criminals should run free" would be much better for them than the optics of "DHS thinks due process is no substitute for violence". Plus, arrests come with arrest reports, which aren't nearly as good as bodycams but which are still less patchy than "we found some guy with a cell phone video a couple weeks later". Did DHS tackle this guy because they were pissed that he vandalized their car? Did he vandalize their car because he was pissed that he broke their rib, but there was some prior reason for the tackle?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link