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 -
Wow. Trump Derangement Syndrome has killed Tenacious D. On stage in Australia yesterday, when asked to make a birthday wish, Kyle said "Don't miss trump next time."
Today, Jack Black cancelled their tour and appears to have killed the band.
I've found the reactions of intense disappointment that Trump wasn't murdered to be really disappointing but unsurprising. My parents (who I was with when it happened and I broke the news to them) immediately expressed disappointment that he was still alive. Watching people post these sentiments publicly online as if they are completely unaware that advocating for the assassination of your political opponents is really bad and completely unacceptable has left me amazed. How can people not realize that it's a bridge too far? They're literally saying that to preserve democracy, they need to assassinate the leading candidate, a level of cognitive dissonance beyond anything I've seen.
That said, I also find the current cancelations hilarious. The very people who are calling Trump "literally hitler" are now pearl clutching that it's not okay to try kill Hitler. The catastrophizing wasn't acceptable before either - maybe this snapped people out of their delusions?
I was surprised by my own reaction, too. I was a lot happier that he survived, and a lot more impressed with his immediate response than I expected to be. Trump grew in my esteem a lot.
Which is the correct position to take for someone who is pro-democracy and thinks Trump is a threat to democracy? Should they be pro or anti assassination? You seem to be simultaneously mocking both stances.
The correct position is to realize that “Trump is trying to end democracy by getting more votes than his opponent by appealing to more voters by suggesting policies that provide material improvements to their lives and the lives of their children” is an absurd one.
Trump is not a “threat to democracy”. This is why there is no coherence to be found among the supporting or downstream arguments around that.
It's not incoherent to think that Trump is a danger to democracy. It might be wrong but it's not incoherent.
You'd obviously be familiar with the Hitler example. He won a legitimate election, and then after he was in power made himself dictator. Or you could look at Hugo Chavez, or Robert Mugabe. There's plenty of precedent for people seizing power fairly and then retaining it illegitimately.
Now, you would obviously counter "Trump is not Hitler", and I would agree with you. But different people can have different opinions, even if those opinions are wrong. There are absolutely people - lots of them - who believe that Trump is a danger to democracy, and it is a coherent belief to hold.
And so I ask again: should those people support murdering him?
Coherent? Sure i guess. Supported by facts? Not really. That is, it is ridiculous
Ok. But should they support his assassination, given their opinions of the man?
No, because then you support extra-judicial violence in a democratic system predicated on state monopoly of violence. By that logic, anyone who really thinks that X-group or Y-person is really, really, really not good has permission to kill their enemies.
At what point (if any) of his political career do you think the assassination of Hitler would be justified by his opponents?
I'll reframe your question thusly;
At what point did Hitler's authority become illegitimate and unable to be corrected by the functions of the German state?
I think the Enabling Acts of 1933 were pretty much that point. Explicitly extra-legislative and supra-constitutional.
Is any assassination attempt on Hitler at that point therefore valid? Eh, I'm and end-to-end pro-lifer (don't like abortion, don't like death penalty) so I'd've preferred to see some sort of pseudo-state-vigilante-police action. You know, arrest Hitler on behalf of "Free Germany" or something.
But we're playing with counterfactuals within counterfactuals wrapped in hypotheticals. So it's all Dungeons and Dragons. Furthermore, intentionally or not, I've been misled into a "tRumP iS HitLER" online discussion. So, really, I guess I'm the asshole.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link