site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32541 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 2023

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.

9
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

like drinking in woods of indeterminate ownership or stealing pumpkins from farm fields and shit like that, and this would sometimes end with a fat, black cop chasing a bunch of spry kids through fields and woods. I once got away because I crawled under a fence that the guy couldn't fit under. If we took these statements about a duty of compliance to their logical conclusion, the officer had every right to shoot me. After all, I had clearly committed a crime, ignored his orders and fled. And it was clear that he wasn't going to catch me unless he could stop me from a distance.

He did not have every right to shoot you, and odds are he was well aware of that, since using deadly force to subdue a fleeing criminal has been unconstitutional for almost 40 years now and police academies across America teach this to every class. The only instances in which using deadly force to subdue a fleeing criminal is permitted is when the officer has a reasonable belief that the criminal poses a substantial threat to someone's life.

Posts like this exemplify the dishonesty in all discourse surrounding black crime and the consequences imposed upon it. Hardly anyone is shot because they were running away from the cops. Many (most?) cases involve people who were actively attacking the cops, like Michael Brown, or attacking someone else, like Makhia Bryant. Breonna Taylor was shot because her drug dealer boyfriend opened fire on the cops, and they fired back. These are experiences far removed from the lives of the white libs who do this "Aww shucks, who didn't do a little horsing around when they were kids?" routine, and yet there is always this pretense that it could happen to anyone. Have you ever charged a cop and tried to steal his gun? Have you ever picked up a knife and tried to stab someone? Have you ever dealt drugs out of your apartment, or lived with someone who did? If not, why pretend the law and order types aren't in touch with reality?

I wasn't discussing the actual law, I was discussing the rhetoric from conservatives in my social circle that suggests that a cop has the right to do anything to force compliance. In any event, the case you referenced states that they aren't allowed to use deadly force unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." In practice this isn't a particularly difficult standard to meet. Recall the Antwon Rose shooting where the officer shot a fleeing suspect and was acquitted by a jury with three black jurors and a black foreman. In an attempt to quell protests that erupted in the wake of the verdict, the foreman went on local television and explained that the law gives police wide latitude in these situations and changing that law is the job of the legislature, not a criminal jury. While my own underage drinking experience probably wouldn't fall into that kind of situation, the Rose case was pretty big here and most conservatives defending the police were of the opinion that anyone who ran deserved to get shot, and I used my own experiences to push back against this argument.

Again, Antwon Rose was fleeing from a police stop of his car that had been used 10 minutes prior for a drive-by-shooting. Under those circumstances, the cops had every reason to believe the inhabitants of the car posed a significant threat to the lives of others - they had been shooting at people just 10 minutes ago! You have absolutely no experiences that are even remotely similar to this! Why keep up this "There but for the grace of God go I" act?

Because, again, it's not about the actual circumstances but about the rhetoric. In the days after the shooting it wasn't known that the police officer in the Rose case pulled the vehicle over based on anything other than a vague description, and it certainly wasn't known that Rose was involved in the actual shooting. The protestors made it seem like the kids had no idea why the vehicle had been pulled over and simply ran out of instinct when confronted by the officer. Conservatives at the time said that, even assuming that the protestors' account of events was true it didn't matter; by virtue of having deliberately disobeyed the orders of a sworn officer and run the kids were tempting fate. Same thing with the George Floyd case—the guy was in custody, unarmed, restrained, and not going anywhere, and again some people acted like the officer should have been given carte blanche because Floyd wasn't 100% compliant. I din't have any disagreement with the Rose verdict once the facts came out, but some people simply said facts be damned, only criminals run from the cops. That's what I'm arguing against.

Have you ever dealt drugs out of your apartment, or lived with someone who did?

Correction: Have you ever dealt drugs out of your apartment, or lived with someone who did, and also had a DEAD BODY in your car?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats