site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26009 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are we gonna get body-cam footage and be able to come to an independent judgment on the conduct of the government in the course of the raid?

I doubt it.

I wish that we held public servants (particularly ones authorized to use deadly force) to a "duty to proactively gather proof of innocence". That way, if an officer couldn't decisively clear his own name then he would be at risk of being fired, even if the evidence that exists is too weak for criminal charges.

Instead, they get cover for bad decisions, like in this case (paraphrased and dramatized):

  • Officer: After checking the details, I proceeded with the raid.
  • Judge: You checked the details and confirmed that they were correct right? Actually never mind, you get qualified immunity regardless. You checked, after all.

I think we're talking at cross-terms here. There is a difference between

  • The decision to raid based on incomplete investigating or misleading testimony to the approving magistrate
  • The conduct of the raid itself and the propriety of the use of deadly force

Regardless of the first prong, every arrest has to be carried out with the animating purpose of bringing the suspect to face justice and with use of deadly force as an absolute last resort. Of course, most of the time deadly force is justified -- the meme about police routinely shooting the unarmed is widely overblown. So in this case, what kind of shoot was it?

I don't think that the officer's behaviour in the weeks leading up to the raids was objectionable in either case (or at least I'm not objecting to it). It's just what happened in the time between showing up at the street and knocking on/down the door that's at issue.

So in this case, what kind of shoot was it?

We don't know and the government feels no need to inform us. If there was exculpatory bodycam footage I'm guessing we would see it, but they don't have enough foresight to gather that evidence.

The thread that links ___'s case to mine is that the officers feel no need to be accountable for their actions. Malinowski's shooters didn't feel the need to defend their (upcoming) actions, and Parks' invaders weren't required to confirm that the address was correct. Ranking the credibility of different decision making styles:

  1. Mathematically proven to logical certainty.
  2. Scientifically or legally proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Reached through proper checks and balances auditable controls in a verifiable way.
  4. A reasonable decision made by a competent person following their training/expertise.
  5. A decision considering the relevant factors.
  6. A decision that isn't based off of illegal or malicious factors (e.g. racism, price fixing).
  7. A decision.

I'm pushing for the police to meet standard #3 whenever practical. Regardless of whether Malinowski was a shot well or not, the decision is not verifiable. The warrant is largely verifiable, and we can debate as to whether it's good or not, but apparently they don't care as much about proving that the shot was good. Maybe the officer could meet standard #4, maybe #7. Who knows.

Lt. Mike Lewis was held to standard #6 in his wrong-house raid.

We don't know and the government feels no need to inform us. If there was exculpatory bodycam footage I'm guessing we would see it, but they don't have enough foresight to gather that evidence.

You would think that police would be on top of releasing exculpatory footage ASAP, but only a few agencies have actually gotten that kind of turnaround time.

But perhaps you're right. At the same time, maybe the footage will come out showing Malinowski clearly raising a gun and firing at officers before they fired back.

I'm pushing for the police to meet standard #3 whenever practical.

I have no particular objection to this as the standard.

But again, you're now talking about conduct prior to the raid and not the conduct during the raid. Or else maybe I'm confused because it makes no sense to have a check and balance during an arrest.

Regardless of whether Malinowski was a shot well or not, the decision is not verifiable.

Huh? The decision to shoot taken at the time was either reasonable (the officer had an objective and well-founded need for lethal self defense or defense of other innocent life) or not.

Or else maybe I'm confused because it makes no sense to have a check and balance during an arrest.

Sorry, that's my mistake. TIL that "checks and balances" is a very specific term of art that only applies to the government. I meant something like "Establish critical control point monitoring requirements" or "quality assurance via preventive actions".

We don't accept someone's word that food isn't contaminated or that a part is manufactured correctly. We have implemented recordkeeping and inspection requirements ("checks" on the procedure) that provide sufficient safety without compromising productivity ("balances" between those goals...oops).

You can't go "Trust me, bro. This food is good." because we value the safety that those procedures bring. Meanwhile cops are like "Trust me, bro. It was a good raid." and we just collectively shrug our shoulders and move on. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we don't care enough about (future) raids to make it easy to answer.

Huh? The decision to shoot taken at the time was either reasonable (the officer had an objective and well-founded need for lethal self defense or defense of other innocent life) or not.

The uncertainty is the problem. I don't just want it to be a good decision based on the facts, I want it to clearly be a good decision based on the available evidence (or alternatively clearly be a bad decision that's guaranteed to lead to punishment). I can't tell if it was a good decision or not, and nobody else can either.

Well, I guess the rise of body cams since BLM has done more for this than anything else in living memory.

The uncertainty is the problem. I don't just want it to be a good decision based on the facts, I want it to clearly be a good decision based on the available evidence (or alternatively clearly be a bad decision that's guaranteed to lead to punishment). I can't tell if it was a good decision or not, and nobody else can either.

Seems like a fine goal.

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