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 -
"It's OK to sell duct tape, knives, ropes, and large black plastic bags" does not imply "It's OK to sell duct tape, knives, ropes, and large black plastic bags to a guy you know works for a serial killer"
Outlawing sting operations does not seem to be a good idea.
Controlling police to prevent incompetent sting operations seems a good idea (and in general having some good handle over police).
No sting operation was actually executed. No actionable evidence was gathered, no convictions were secured. Both the weapons and the criminals trafficking them were allowed to escape. The federal agent who blew the whistle on the fuckup was very obviously punished for doing so. The agents who failed to secure either the weapons or the criminals were rewarded and promoted. The Attorney General successfully stonewalled congress when it attempted an investigation.
I do not think that sequence of events is fairly described as a "sting operation", nor do I think its failure can be reasonably ascribed to "incompetence". Given the politically-charged nature of the incident, given the complete lack of consequences for those responsible, and given how those responsible appear to have been deliberately protected by their superiors and by the Obama administration itself, and given that the many remaining unknowns are unknown only because the Obama administration fought successfully and at great length to conceal them, I do not think it prudent to give either the agents involved or the administration directing them the benefit of the doubt.
You seem to really underestimate just how incredibly incompetent people can be and overestimate how often complex black flag operations are executed in real life.
Or maybe I overestimate how many things are bungled due to incompetence and underestimate presence of highly complex nefarious plots.
(may be related to fact that in my area I seen amazing examples of extreme stupidity, bad planning, incompetence, denial of reality - and have seen accusations of nefarious plots mismatching reality. I was even personally accused of running some complex conspiracy few times, that has not existed - unless I am some case of bizarre reverse schizophrenia.)
How this proves anything? I am pretty sure that if institution is rotten then they would do the same in case of conspiracy and out of scale fuckup.
Oh and note that the same claim without
would probably not trigger such nitpicking and disbelief from my side. Probably focusing on provable and mostly covered up part would be more effective, at least in my case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So you want morality checks, employment histories and doctor’s referrals on all purchases of duct tape? Unless they’ve been proven guilty, they’re free citizens allowed to buy goods for any suspected killer they choose.
No. I want federal agents to enforce the law against known criminals. No morality checks or employment histories or doctor's referrals were needed in these cases; the gun dealers reported the purchasers to federal authorities on their own initiative, because they correctly recognized illegal purchases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link