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 -
Legally, I don't know how much of Jones's defense did or could rely on him claiming not to know people were being harassed. But as to your first point, I think it requires a lot of charity to assume Alex Jones sincerely believed everything he was saying (IIRC, he at one point actually made some sort of "I'm Just Asking Questions" disclaimer), and me sincerely believing you are murdering children in your basement wouldn't absolve me of responsibility if I'm causing people to show up at your house trying to free the children.
I find the argument that is setting some precedent that will "silence dissent" unconvincing; most people objecting seem to just hate the people who hate Alex Jones, and therefore him losing means the wrong people won. I suspect if an unhinged follower of Rachel Maddow really did attack Trump and he sued her and won, the same people defending Alex Jones would say she deserves it.
I think we’ve had a full eye full of what can happen when the state decides what ideas are simply too dangerous to be considered. And taking away a person’s livelihood for having said things that those in power don’t like is a huge danger to the ability to have free exchange of ideas. I think Jones is at best wrong and at worst a grifter shilling stupid products that don’t work. But there are lots of other people with ideas that they believe to be true that would absolutely be bothersome to the elites. Dissent on trans issues being a big one. The idea that someone can be induced to believe they are trans is something I think is worth taking seriously. But at the same time, a person who’s listening to that might get upset by it, or if it’s connected to things going on in their kids school, then they might harass teachers. Is that the fault of someone just stating a theory? I don’t think so, unless that person is telling people to take action. My personal bias is strongly towards not shutting down speech unless the person is clearly trying to incite criminal action. If Maddow says “Trump wants to be a dictator, somebody should stop him” that’s pretty open and close incitement. If she just says “Trump wants to be a dictator,” that’s not her trying to get a response from her viewers, it’s simply her opinion on the facts.
I feel like we are going in circles. I completely agree that no ideas should be censored and people should not be sued or persecuted by the state for expressing them, and I completely disagree that this is what happened to Alex Jones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once again, there was no trial on the merits.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link