site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was going to write a response to /u/FCFromSSC along these lines, just couldn't get around to giving it the time and thought required.

I fully agree that 30 seconds for K&A is absurd, that the daytime requirement is abused and that the ATF/police should generally have a much higher premium on avoiding (where possible) situations in which the use of force would be required. This is less about the law and more about their internal decisioning process -- they should value plans that accomplish law enforcement goals without force over those that accomplish the same goals with force -- even when such force is completely lawful & proper.

I think the three of us agree on that.

But it's especially galling in a case like this: agents were looking for a wide array of documents, laptops, and guns, almost none of which were not especially plausible to flush down toilets or sinks

I disagree that this is a relevant concern. The right of a citizen to surrender in an orderly fashion (I know, no such right really exists today, it ought to exist) should not be contingent on the specific crimes or types of evidence to be found. The almost regular refrain in gun/drug searches of "they might destroy the evidence" or "they have guns and might take the time to arm themselves" has become a powerful excuse to ignore exactly the concerns you raise above.

I also disagree, at some level, that the quality of the warrant or the quality of the underlying charge is a relevant concern. Those seem like relevant concerns to be addressed in a subsequent formal legal proceeding, but in my conception (albeit: this is kind of vibe based) everyone that is the target of a warrant (or PC for arrest) is entitled to the same level of concern listed above, independent of the merit of their case.