site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32427 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First, you're mostly just going to catch the stupidest criminals this way. The smarter criminals will be able to evade capture for much longer. So we're only catching people who would have eventually been caught, anyways.

I think expediting the capture of criminals is a good thing (except perhaps for petty drug crimes, but certainly for violent crimes).

Second, stupid criminals will make stupid choices. They'll make the decision to run/fight more often than not. This means cops could get injured, or some dumb criminal (and many criminals are legitimately mentally retarded) will get hurt/killed. And today that could lead to city-wide protests that cause hundreds of millions in damages (from looting, vandalism, and just lost economic opportunity from businesses being closed and consumers staying away).

I think the benefit of getting them off the streets negates such possible secondary effects . It's worth keeping in mind how uncommon events like the Floyd or Michael Brown protests are. If the police did their jobs , events like 2020 would have not happened at all (probably blame the media, lawyers, and politicians for that).

I think expediting the capture of criminals is a good thing

But randomly catching them by targeting people breaking minor laws isn't expediting it. Having police go and find someone when a warrant is issued would be the quickest. Instead, we've turned routine stops into inquisitions.

We could drop the pretext, and just empower police to stop and search/investigate anybody. That would catch even more criminals. At the end of the day, we are giving up more freedom for the masses in order to gain a tiny bit of security. COVID showed us just how far the government can push that, and the masses largely complied (or at least didn't publicly disagree). I doubt the government will reign in their powers; now every institution is going to want to leverage many of those things to apply to their area of expertise. If we can lockdown an entire nation, demand COVID testing and vaccinations to go out in public, why could we not do the same if a serial killer is on the loose? Lockdown a community, require DNA testing and an alibi to go to work.

If the police did their jobs , events like 2020 would have not happened at all (probably blame the media, lawyers, and politicians for that).

Over 200 black people are killed by police each year in the US. (Though they seem to have stopped recording race recently.) It follows that George Floyd-style protests aren't actually caused by cops killing black people. There would be several riots per week.

The media are much more of a causative factor here. They're the ones who decide when and onto what to focus attention.

It also follows that better policing won't solve it. Police will always remain human. The number will never be zero. Even the number of dumb mistakes like grabbing a gun thinking it's a taser will never be zero. And even one is enough in principle.

You could cut police violence across the board by 7/8ths (imagine that), and there'd still be room for two George Floyds a month, whenever the media should desire another. There isn't the desire for that many, so cutting the police violence by 7/8ths would probably not change the frequency of large scale protests/riots at all.

The idea that "the media" manufactured the George Floyd protests is putting the cart before the horse. Protests were already kicking off in the twin cities by the time major media coverage started - that is what drew media coverage in the first place. They might've been able to discourage the spread of protests from the twin cities by refusing to cover it (but then, maybe not - virality is a powerful force), but they're not able to conjure conflict from nothing.

The crucial factors in the George Floyd protests were:

  1. Poor police-community relations. In places where there's high levels of trust between the police and the community, the police get given the benefit of the doubt when they fuck up (even when they probably shouldn't). I'm not from Minneapolis, so I'm forced to rely on the opinions of acquaintances who are, and they're pretty much uniformly negative on the police department and especially the police union. See also: the Ferguson and Baltimore protests in 2014/15, where community relations were also terrible. It isn't just that one guy got killed, it's that the local police had a pattern of harassing and abusing people to the point where malice was simply assumed.

  2. An (apparently) egregious incident. At lot of people who get killed by police either clearly deserve or at least there's enough ambiguity that people aren't going to get up in arms and the media will describe it as an 'officer involved shooting'. The absolute best you could say about Derek Chauvin is that he did nothing while a man in his custody died, and there was widely viewed footage of him doing it. It didn't help that during subsequent protests the police kept vindicating their critics.

  3. Covid - you had a bunch of stressed out people and a larger than usual share of people not working. Without this there probably would have been protests, but nowhere near the magnitude that we actually had.

It also follows that better policing won't solve it. Police will always remain human. The number will never be zero. Even the number of dumb mistakes like grabbing a gun thinking it's a taser will never be zero. And even one is enough in principle.

Better policing will raise trust in police, which will a) make people more willing to cooperate with the police b) make them more willing to extend the benefit of the doubt when something happens. (To a large degree this already happens - the vast majority of instances of the police misconduct pass without evoking protests and many pass without comment beyond a sanitized blurb in the local news).

They stopped recording this? I haven't heard that. Do you have a source? That's awful, I hope it isn't true/there's still a way to know moving forward

You could cut police violence across the board by 7/8ths (imagine that), and there'd still be room for two George Floyds a month, whenever the media should desire another.

You'd mostly have more Ricardo Munoz or Makhia Bryant (see if youtube will show you the bodycam footage) type killings.

It also follows that better policing won't solve it. Police will always remain human. The number will never be zero. Even the number of dumb mistakes like grabbing a gun thinking it's a taser will never be zero. And even one is enough in principle.

I think police on average do a good job but the handful of incidents get inordinate media coverage , yet the media hardly makes a fuss when other people do their jobs poorly . But the use of lethal force is something which needs careful consideration .

The idea that protests/riots are correlated with the police violence rate any more than very tenuously is, imo, obviously untrue. Protests/riots are a result of media coverage, not policing.

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