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 see a few common types of criticism of Charlie Kirk floating around in response to his death. These appear to be gotchas that people are using to justify his assassination, or that he had it coming. I don't think these gotchas are as valid as some people think they are. It's a mixture of his own quotes and things he has said previously.
There are also some comparisons of Kirk's assassination to the assassination of two democrat Minnesota lawmakers, and how the right gave little care for the killing of the two democrat politicians. I go more into detail about why these are not comparable here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3128/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/364180?context=8#context
Here is the full context of the empathy quote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-001900786.html
He also had this to say about empathy
So Kirk is criticizing the liberal use of empathy, and he directly states he prefers sympathy. Not a gotcha. Maybe one doesn't need to empathize with him, but at least show some sympathy since the stated reasoning is he said he doesn't like empathy, but he did not say the same about sympathy? Kirk's stance on the word empathy does not justify gleeful jubilation of his death.
Here is the full context of the second amendment quote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-205500283.html
This is so clearly not a celebration of gun deaths from Charlie Kirk. It's part of a larger argument. He's not calling for or supporting the use of guns in senseless killings. I think this is a stronger "gotcha" and the irony is definitely there. I do think the argument that his stance of gun control directly contributed to an environment that made him being killed by guns more likely does have some element of truth to it. But Kirk's stance is not a gleeful condonation of deaths via guns. It's also a pretty standard pro 2nd amendment stance.
One could argue the rates of death to usage in auto accident deaths is much lower and the benefits much higher compared to the availability of guns in America. But then they would be making the same type of argument Kirk is making here. I don't think people would say someone that dies in an auto accident deserves it because they support driving cars. I do think at a certain point the statistics will shift my stance that the risk of guns outweigh the benfits procured by the second amendment. Most people using this quote are not even willing to have that conversation.
Also, we have to consider the usage of the tool. It would be extremely ironic if Kirk died via gunfire in the process of protecting god-given rights, as he claimed. We don't know the motive of the killer, but I highly doubt the intention was to protect any god-given rights. Going back to the car analogy, if someone were to argue we should allow unlimited speed on a highway but dies from drunk driving, there is some element of irony, but it's not as ironic as if that person were to die from driving high speeds on the highway. Neither did Kirk die from a random altercation on the street or a stray bullet, which I think would give more credence to the irony factor. Kirk was deliberately assassinated via gun for likely politically motivated reasons.
Here is the full context of the Paul Pelosi quote: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493/
Not an exact comparison for a few reasons. Paul Pelosi is not dead. Furthermore, this statement is made in context of a world that many criminals from blue cities constantly get out on bail. See Karmelo Anthony or Decarlos Brown Jr. as recent high profile examples of criminals getting out on bail (In the case of Decarlos Brown, he is not out on bail for murder, but he was out on bail when he murdered the Ukrainian girl).
Kirk is not stating the attacker is a hero. He's saying we should bail him out to ask questions. He does come off a bit celebratory of the attack. But Paul Pelosi is not dead, and I'm fairly certain news was out by this point that he was recovering, which gives for more room to makes jokes about the other side than murder.
He also literally states that he thinks the attack was awful and it's not right.
The constant use of out of context quotes to push an agenda or to condone murder is frankly sickening and all so tiresome. Find me an example of Charlie Kirk being gleeful at the deaths of others, and I'll adjust my stances a bit. But so far, these are not it.
EDIT: Adding in this as one more example of a criticism I just saw from someone I consider a centrist.
This is followed up by a statement that Kirk has "abhorent" politics, he was perpetuating bad ideas to a wide audience, and that we're better off without him. He did express symapthy for his wife and kids. My benefit of the doubt is that all but 2 of the people he is talking to had been making fun of Charlie and criticising him, so he subconsciously adopts a more critical stance.
Source of that claim is around 18:20 in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aL1k2I1HtXE&t=1066
By the way this is really fucking painful to transcript becuase Charlie and the other person speaking keep talking over each other so I will put this AI transcript for now and clean up later. Just watch the video at the timestamp i gave if you want the full context.
I expect a better take or example from someone with a centrist view. The reason that claim might come off as shocking is because the imagery of a raped 11 year old being forced to give birth is sickening. But if your stance is that is that the fetus are human beings with rights and that abortion is murder, it is not an absurd position to hold that aborting the child in an 11 year old is wrong even if the circumstances of that pregnancy is horrifying and evil. This is a logical conclusion from his openly stated beliefs about abortion. Also this is an absurdly rare scenario that the other person, Maren, brought up to justify abortions. It's not like Kirk randomly made that statement to be edgy, it's in response to a hypothetical scenario made by his opponent.
With regards to the bail comment, it seems like the point he was making was that san fransisco liberals live to let everyone out with little or no bail, so why is this guy still in jail.
Then he made an aside that someone should bail him out and question him.
Yeah and there's a substantial difference between bailing somebody and saying they're innocent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All this makes me wonder all the more about the shooter. He used a bolt action hunting rifle, and fired when Kirk was asked about gun violence, killed no one else, and successfully escaped the scene. However it’s not clear how many, if any, of the previous were conscious, or even pre-planned, decisions. Was the intention in one or all of those aspects to try and mold conversation in some fashion? On some level most shooters or assassins have become aware that their survival rate is usually not very good, and that they will be at some point over-analyzed by the media. There is rising meta-awareness there. And also, the basic of “get on roof with scoped gun” is in fact absurdly effective, apparently even against presidents, though most people smart enough to realize this are smart enough not to do it.
This is, in some very real sense, a trap. If you ask me, both science/psychology AND politics demands that if this keeps happening, the best solution is actually something like this: form some kind of loose compact, whether between individuals or news media or whatever, to focus on victims and not give shooters the time of day. Show, don’t tell, the stories of bereaved family; show, don’t tell, the good parts of the person shot; show, don’t just tell, the harm this causes bystanders. I’m pretty sure that although a handful of would be shooters are true sickos, a good chunk of them are still vulnerable to this kind of appeal. Sort of like suicide prevention, glorification or even just painting it in a literary light is bad - focus on how family and friends will be sad is good.
More options
Context Copy link
Hey this is a great post. Reported for quality!
More options
Context Copy link
I really appreciated this post. I thought about asking in my post in this thread for examples of the worst things Charlie has said. My local subreddit majority a variation of "I'll show as much empathy for the Nazi as he showed for others."
Attacking someone over acknowledging trade-offs is extremely toxic to dialogue. One of my primary criticism of the left (the right isn't much better) for years is that for the left "there are no had answers". Closely related is having little awareness of tradeoffs and unintended consequences.
Here are some more of the stuff he said that some people I know are pointing out as some of the worst things he said.
He also opposed gay marriage was stated as another reason.
I'm going to throw his stance on trans people onto the list as well, I guess.
I'm not going to defend his stances here or bother finding the context of these quotes or stances, but I will note the automatic assumption from folks that are saying what Kirk is saying is bad with little to no attempt to explain why it is bad. No attempt to understand his arguments or to point out the flaws in his arguments.
Even if I were to agree 100% that these are bad takes, and he is wrong, these specific claims don't make him a Nazi or a fascist.
And this is a key point many on the Left need to grasp. Charlie was not radical/far right. He is well within the Overton Window of Conservative Republican beliefs. So when you call him a Nazi and at best shrug if not celebrate his death the message is very clear: normie Republican are Nazis and brutally murdering them is within the Overton Window.
Except the problem was not really his beliefs. They can tolerate him having those beliefs, but not when he brings those beliefs to college campuses, and certainly not when he is effective at spreading those beliefs. That is what they cannot tolerate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link