site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   20471 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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):

  1. Misrepresentation of Training Techniques: The article criticizes Coleman Hughes and TFOM for misrepresenting the Minneapolis Police Department's training techniques. They argue that Chauvin's actions deviated significantly from the authorized Maximal Restraint Technique (MRT) and were not in line with department policy.
  2. Chauvin's Use of Force: Chauvin's use of force on Floyd is characterized as not merely a departure from policy but as callous disregard for human life. The article contends that Chauvin's failure to adhere to training protocols and heed warnings about positional asphyxia directly contributed to Floyd's death.
  3. Misleading Interpretation of Testimonies: Hughes and TFOM are accused of distorting testimonies from MPD officials to suggest that MRT justified Chauvin's actions. The documentary allegedly manipulates statements from officers to fit its narrative, ignoring crucial context about the nature and limitations of MRT.
  4. Disputed Presentation of Evidence: The article challenges the assertion that Chauvin was trained in the specific technique depicted in a training slide. It argues that Chauvin's defense failed to establish the relevance of the slide during the trial, and subsequent appeals courts rejected the argument that its exclusion prejudiced Chauvin.
  5. Implications for Chauvin's Conviction: Despite attempts to portray Chauvin's actions as justifiable based on training, the article contends that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated Chauvin's failure to follow departmental guidelines, leading to an unjustified use of force resulting in Floyd's death.
  6. Medical Examiner's Statements: Dr. Andrew Baker's early comments to prosecutors stirred controversy, with critics questioning his objectivity. However, interpretations of his remarks vary, with some suggesting he was transparent but cautious, while others believe he may have been influenced by bias.
  7. Expert Witnesses: The near-consensus among medical experts was that Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death, with the defense's lone witness facing skepticism due to past controversies.
  8. Floyd's Drug Use: The article explains that Floyd's drug tolerance as a longtime user might have masked the severity of the drugs in his system. Expert testimony from specialists and forensic pathologists presented during Chauvin's trial further refuted the notion that Floyd's behavior was consistent with a drug overdose, as he exhibited energy and was mobile prior to his encounter with the police.

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 really like Glenn and John but was shocked at their rapid credulity over a partisan documentary. TFOM is important, but my default is skepticism and alarm bells started ringing when (iirc) the doc started impugning a defense attorney for based praise of his (criminal underworld) clients. Also, as a viewer, I had to pause the sections covering the MRT manual and speculate why Chauvin allegedly/technically didn't use it. I guess I've come to expect to good faith steelmanning.

With high confidence, Chauvin meaningfully contributed to Floyd's death.

I'm camped in this epistemic ground but with low confidence because I see plenty of space for reasonable doubt (ie an unhealthy 47 y/o male with heart problems and plenty of drugs on board dying of a heart attack while stressed and recovering form covid is a reasonable explanation), and/or I think it's arguable that Chauvins actions were reasonable enough given the situation.

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