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 -
Let's recap. In the Nowak case, a brown man stabbed a white man. When the police came, they assumed that the mortally wounded white man was the aggressor, and went to arrest him, putting him in handcuffs and reading him his rights, rather than attempting to render medical care. I and many others think that this is outrageous. The essence of what makes it outrageous is that the victim was treated like a criminal.
You would have us believe that there's nothing "unique" about this case, and that things like it happen all the time with the racial valence reversed. I asked you to cite a specific example thereof, and the best you can come up with is a case in which a black man assaulted a white man, the white man shot him, and when the police arrived on the scene they immediately realised the black man was in urgent need of medical care and raced him to the hospital.
Henry Nowak: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately move to read him his rights and put him in handcuffs. When he tells them that he's been stabbed, they tell them he hasn't. They only realise the gravity of their mistake when it's too late.
Markeis McGlockton: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately recognise that he's been mortally wounded and race him to the hospital. At no point do they put him in handcuffs, read him his rights or arrest him.
darwin/guesswho/magicalkittycat: OMG, these two cases are exactly the same! It's like I'm seeing double here!So again we went from
"Vaguely analogous" to "they didn't handcuff the shooting victim so it doesn't count" right?
More specifically:
so it doesn't count.
They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).
That's what happened after the scene. I can't find anything on what happened after to Digwa after the police realized Nowak was injured while on the scene, everything is focused specifically on Nowak himself but it seems like from what little I can find asking the chatbots that he was arrested on the scene (not being allowed to leave yet) after the injury was discovered.
The responding officers did not take the self-defense claim from the shooter legitimately. The individuals responsible for prosecuting him did. The responding officers brought the shooting victim to the hospital as soon as they arrived on the scene. Why are you pretending not to understand this extremely simple distinction?
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