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 -
I think it’s more of a benefit of the doubt thing. Most critics of police are people who have very little experience in those kinds of roles. They’re giving an opinion based on the aesthetics of the situation, where it looks bad on video.
Here’s the thing though. While shootings are rare, the fact is that guns in the USA are so common that every encounter must be treated as though the subject is armed and prepared to use their weapon. Which throws a lot of good faith out the window. Guy won’t roll down the window, especially a tinted one — it must be assumed that behind the tinted glass the suspect has and is preparing to use a gun. If the suspect reaches for something it must be assumed to be a weapon. Reaching for your waistband again, a cop cannot assume anything other than this is reaching for a concealed weapon. Asking someone to assume good faith doesn’t work when being wrong is potentially lethal.
Then you have the officer’s gun which precludes a lot of the silliness of people suggesting that cops use Judo to put people on the ground. Except that this puts the officer and his gun within reach. If he doesn’t have full control of both hands during the encounter, the suspect can simply grab the gun and shoot the officer. Deescalation can’t be done unless the officer has complete control of the scene.
More options
Context Copy link