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 -
Glenn and John have responded to Radley Balko, who has been attempting to discredit the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis. Balko has thus far written two articles, [1] and [2], and a third is planned. Balko has an obnoxious writing style, so I made a summary of the main arguments with the help of ChatGPT (free version):
In previous videos, Glenn and John reacted to TFOM and interviewed the filmmakers. I'm sure none of this is news to many people here. I'm hoping to elicit some discussion and also to check my understanding of what happened when Floyd died. My current thinking is:
Chauvin's actions that day, while not sanctioned in the training manual, were perhaps not unusual within the MPD. I strongly suspect that he kept Floyd in that position simply because it had worked for him in the past and he hadn't been corrected.
With high confidence, Chauvin meaningfully contributed to Floyd's death.
Floyd's drug use, including any drugs he may have taken immediately prior to his death, probably made him more fragile than he otherwise would have been, but I find it unlikely that the drugs alone alone killed him.
I find it implausible that any of the officers acted with malice.
Convicting Chauvin of manslaughter or second degree unintentional murder, but not third degree murder, would have made more sense.
There was a Metaculus question for the Chauvin trial. At the time, the community was divided on whether he would be convicted of anything. This gives us a sense of how surprising the reaction to Floyd's death was. Have we been able to make sense of it since then? Decades from now, will anybody care? Or will none of it matter in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to the pandemic?
I think this is a fair take. Aggressive restraint techniques for people experiencing "excited delirium" (i.e. they're high on drugs and about to give themselves a heart attack from overexertion) were common among various police departments. This was probably not wise. Manual restraint by people untrained in medicine is inherently risky for people with compromised cardiopulmonary health (i.e. they're heavily dosed on opiates). Physicians can strap patients who are a danger to themselves to their beds with purpose-designed devices and monitor their vitals; some beat cop with inadequate training is really rolling the dice when they sit on a suspect's neck or back.
The Minneapolis police swore up and down that Chauvin's actions were contrary to department policy. This is probably technically true, but if you told me it was nevertheless common practice and they were covering up a systemic training issue by scapegoating a single cop, I'd find it plausible.
Just to steelman the alternative here, people lie, especially when they do not want to be restrained. There are also no gurneys with straps easily available to beat cops. Because people lie, you really can’t take people at their word when they’re claiming distress. If the only available restraint is sitting on the guy, and the guy knows you can’t do that if he says the magic words “I can’t breathe,” a whole bunch of people under such restraint are going to develop breathing problems. And given th fact that a fair percentage of those people will be armed, I think it’s going to cause either more cops being shot or shooting people because restraining is effectively no longer allowed.
Floyd had already been patted down and cuffed. He was uncooperative, but not a threat to the officers or others at the time. He was obviously on drugs, so his compromised physical condition was apparent regardless of his statements one way or another. It's possible for suspects in other, different encounters to lie in order to escape or threaten officers, but that wasn't part of the calculus in this case. The restraint technique Chauvin executed was simply too dangerous for someone with depressed cardiopulmonary function. Whether this was a systemic training failure or just criminal depravity on Chauvin's part is the interesting question. The jury seems to have concluded the latter.
It's probably inevitable that some percentage of people who overdose on hard drugs and then encounter police will end up dying in custody under ambiguous medical circumstances. That said, police should not be employing techniques that are more dangerous than necessary to protect themselves and the public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link