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 -
Most governments are capable of sending in the troops and shooting to kill if it becomes necessary. And they have a whole arsenal of lesser options. That includes the US and the UK. The only time it's not possible is when the troops might not be reliable (e.g. Venezuela). They can indeed pretend to be powerless in the face of riots for things they like, and crush riots for things they don't like, January 6 style.
The British police were able and willing to contain the 2011 London riots within 72 hours - for those positing political motivations, that was despite the 2011 riots over-representing blacks and nominally being against racist policing (the police had shot a black gangbanger who was wanted for illegal gun possession and who had, but did not fire, a gun when he was shot).
The anti-immigrant riots we are seeing now have been the first thing since 2011 with close to that level of destruction. So unless we see a dramatically harsher response (which is unlikely - the sentences handed down in 2011 were notoriously harsh, as they should be) I don't think this is a case of obvious two-tier policing. Both the UK BLM protests and the recent Palestinian protests were an order of magnitude less violent than 2011 or the last few days.
Right-wing media claimed that the Southend machete fight was an example of minorities being allowed to run riot by the police, but in fact the participants were arrested and at least one has been charged with attempted murder.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not actually sure the British army would be willing to use live ammunition against protestors that aren't currently storming Buckingham palace, and I definitely don't think the US army would- they waited until the J6 protestors went home before arresting them, after all.
The national guard is regularly deployed during large riots. The marine were deployed during the LA riots. Though that was prior to the Navy and Marine Corp being added to Posse Comitatus in 2021.
More options
Context Copy link
The British army has 30+ years of experience acting as a supplementary police force from their time in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, not to mention the Northern Irish police who still deal with at least one riot a year (the last one was yesterday iirc).
If the rioting in England gets serious they've got plenty of institutional experience and lots of active Northern Irish policemen to call upon. They're more equipped than most to employ the military against rioters without jumping straight into shooting people.
More options
Context Copy link
Except Ashli Babbitt. They shot her. If they'd needed to shoot more, they'd have shot more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link