site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, as far as I can tell, there are two issues at hand:

  1. Many of the unsolved deadly shootings are committed to avenge other unsolved deadly shootings, and everyone involved are immigrants.

  2. The police is pressured from above to not investigate deadly shootings too much because it'd put immigrants in a bad light.

Many of the unsolved deadly shootings are committed to avenge other unsolved deadly shootings, and everyone involved are immigrants.

A case can go unsolved if it is not proven. They have an idea of who the shooter is and why, so they have the network but if it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt they don't go to court with it and remains 'unsolved' in the books even if they have a good suspect and motive. Mostly because of homegrown "Omerta" as you put it.

The police is pressured from above to not investigate deadly shootings too much because it'd put immigrants in a bad light.

I'm with southkraut on this do you have any reference to this. Because that would need to be fixed.

See my reply to Southkraut.

The police is pressured from above to not investigate deadly shootings too much because it'd put immigrants in a bad light.

This flatters my biases, but is there any hard evidence for it?

What else am I, a right-winger with limited knowledge of Sweden, supposed to take away from this statement?:

The Police themselves know how to fight it, but it is the politicization of the police that is causing problems.

I'm pretty sure 'politicization' here means politicization of the background of the perpetrators.

No it meant that a justice system needs to be free from political influences, but due to bad leftist political ideas that has been introduced into the police like the criminals are victims of their socio-economic status(mostly through leadership by people like Dan Eliasson, who got the ignoble mention in Stupidity Paradox of destroying the Swedish Police organizational culture). This thinking is pervasive in the leadership of the police. So taking it from the threadstart "improved economic and social conditions generally does not reduce crime." is a disproving that criminals are victims socio-economic status. And most police knows that criminals are not somehow victims of structure or systems in place, but funds are being diverted from actual policing to projects that are crime-prevention on flawed ideas. So shooting are investigated by underfunded and understaffed departments that know full well that it is organized crime fighting over illegal business dealings. Knowing full well that these are "rational economic actors" in a segregated part of society. And I might as well described Italian Mafia in New York with that sentence so it doesn't really matter where the criminals come from... it is a function of not being direct part of society you live in and having the illegal ventures being profitable enough. Both of the ends of the political spectrum are obsessed with the identity of criminals which is not helping.

In other words, it's not about immigration per se, but still about bad leftist political ideas, although different ones.

Well, Sweden intentionally doesn't collect these kinds of stats, so it would be hard to prove. But I would suggest that the fact that they don't collect these kinds of stats is pretty damning. Where there's smoke...

So maybe not hard proof. But bayesian evidence, yes

It occurs to me that training people to take one's "I don't know" to mean "I don't want to say" - which is what one is doing every time one uses "I don't know" to mean "I don't want to say" and people find out about it - is probably going to prove costly in the long run.