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 -
If it's not unique, please provide the other examples of this happening, but with white/non-white flipped.
I don't believe you're saying these things for remotely principled reasons. Based on the many, many comments of yours I've read, I don't believe for one second that you'd view a race-flipped version of this as: sad, but nothing to see here.
As I said in another comment, I already did! In the original comment I gave a whole category of crimes where it's common.
domestic abuse victims.
It's common enough to make this mistake that some more experienced officers and departments have adopted the practice of arresting both in response and sorting things out after.
Meanwhile, in my actual comment -- not the more convenient one you're invented to respond to -- I was asking about where this has happened with the ethnicities flipped.
In my reply to your comment, I was aware of the examples you gave in your comment; this is how time works. Those are not examples to my actual question, as you know.
A brown man stabbed a white man. The police showed up and arrested the white man. I can't imagine a good-faith version of your comment where you transport this into "Well, sometimes the police arrest both people in domestic abuse cases!"
Fortunately, I know now not to waste time attempting to imagine the hypothetical good-faith version of such a comment.
There's barely any of those, in the same way there's barely any of white victims with colored aggressors being left free. In reality the ordinary large majority of cases of police believing an aggressor over the victim are same race friends/family who knew each other beforehand and the aggressor calmly lies while the victim responds "inappropriately" and stupid cops assume calm = innocent while not obeying orders/being emotional/whatever = guilty.
It is a real documented and known issue, but most violence works that way. It's almost always people you already know. And therefore almost every case of cops making stupid assumptions is in situations of violence between people who knew each other.
Are there... more than zero?
Because you're the one saying this isn't "unique", it's not representative of a pattern, yawn, it's an everyday occurrence, nothing to see here.
You present a completely unrelated category of domestic abuse as if it proves your position.
When asked for evidence (by two different people!) you pretend that your previously-presented unrelated category is the thing they asked for, and they apparently just failed to read your comment correctly.
When pressed further, you say "there's barely any of [the thing you asked for]". Well, sorry, but I don't even believe you have any of the thing I asked for, or you'd have triumphantly presented it.
I restate that you wouldn't be putting in a fraction of this effort to obfuscate the truth if the ethnicities had been different. I don't pretend to understand why you do this, but I see you doing this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You could apply this retort to 90% of political opinions on the Motte. On that matter, I don't believe you have any real principled reason behind making this post either - I don't believe for one second that you'd view a tribally-flipped version of this as a case of "the poster needs to provide tribally flipped examples, or else he's a dirty hypocrite".
Right-wingers will continue posting that things that make the Right look good are actually a big deal, and things that don't are actually nothingburgers. Left-wingers will continue doing the same with s/right/left/. Should we all just pack up and go home?
I mean, sometimes the race/gender flipped version never actually happening is a part of the reason people are pissed off. There is not, nor will there ever be, a story in which a white male attacks a bunch of brown people in Germany and the cops defend the white guy while arresting the brown guy who tries to stop the mass stabbing. That is part of the story which is the quiet part out loud: the cops are so concerned about looking racist that they will assume the white guy is guilty before even bothering to realize that the brown guy is actually the perpetrator.
More options
Context Copy link
It's worth pointing out that the various UK subreddits, even the typically left-wing ones, are seething with rage at this. It really has cut across the political divide. Nobody in Britain thinks this is a nothingburger (although left-wing politicians are trying to 'depoliticise' it in the expected way).
More options
Context Copy link
I could; and if I did, I would be incorrect.
I thought the words in my comment made this clear, but I wasn't generically responding to a comment I disagreed with: I was observing that magicalkittycat, consistently, as a poster, is not a person who I would believe is (1) making that comment honestly, and (2) makes comments honestly.
That's fine; you are wrong.
Like, you're welcome to hold that belief, but you are factually incorrect and holding it for poor reasons. "I can invoke a superficial symmetry" is not a universal counterargument. Happy to expand on why you're wrong -- I obviously don't expect this comment to suffice as reasoning.
That's fine; again, this reflects on a flaw in your reasoning process, not mine.
Yes, this is true. I don't believe it's true of "90%" of posts on TheMotte, and I don't believe you really believe that either. Otherwise, what's the point in us being here? I'm happy to be here because I don't believe it's true. If you believe it's true, then you're the one who needs to explain that.
No, I think that would be an absurd and stupid thing to think. Why would you ask that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wish more people would come to this conclusion in light of his posting history.
"Prison abolition" has long meant "let my friends out, but we need somewhere to lock up my political enemies so keep the institution."
"It's bad when cops randomly kill people" has long been less popular than "it's bad when cops kill friends, good when they kill enemies." (With the caveat that most take "enemy" and "not person" as synonyms.)
His comment history is freely available and speaks for itself. Why bother pretending to discuss it one more time? We all know what people like that do with power, whatever nice words they say when they haven't got it yet. And whatever anyone else might be willing to say in public. If you prefer life to death, act accordingly.
It is telling that many voices that advocate for not incarcerating for non-violent crimes also declare white-collar crime (which is almost definitionally non-violent) something that needs more prosecution and jail time.
"You may not like it, but Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay are what these non-violent criminals look like" isn't exactly wrong. Although I don't know if it's really a modal example of such: perhaps our attorney members could weigh in.
The modal white collar criminal is probably a homeowner knowingly paying a contractor cash under the table to help the contractor avoid taxation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I think a lot of people have come to that conclusion; I'm certainly one of them. But you can't win them all. Some people don't use this forum as much as others, and some people don't diligently read the usernames of posters.
More options
Context Copy link
Why bother? Anyone who can't contain their urge to use a term like 'sky man' is outing themselves as too obnoxious to worry about. If it were marginally easier to do so I'd probably just hide all comments with such strings.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link