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'm likewise pretty confident that will to resist has never been higher. I'm more pessimistic about what the efforts at confiscation look like. One of the more heartening events in recent years was the attempt by the Canadian government to push through a federal gun registry. Canadian gun owners refused to comply, and the government was greatly embarrassed and dropped the whole thing.
The problem is, I don't think that's what it looks like if Blues attempt confiscation here. I don't think they'll try to actually go door-to-door. I think they'll pass a law, and put essentially zero effort into explicit enforcement at the mass citizen level. Why bother? They can use the law to crush companies and organizations that flout the rules: manufacturers, firing ranges, ammo and accessory companies, the wider ecology. They can go after anyone who looks to be serving as a figurehead, who speaks out or attempts to organize. They can use the law as a sentence enhancement and an additional prosecutorial hook for any other interaction a citizen might have with the cops. I don't think you're going to see a re-enactment of the War on Drugs, where they play endless whack-a-mole with individual people. The point won't be to catch all or even most of the people breaking the law. The point will be to make it significantly more expensive to be a Red, at little to no appreciable cost to Blues. And then if Reds manage to organize resistance, like, say, going the sanctuary route... well, cool, that's just more surface area. Does the financial sector want to be involved in rampant violations of federal law? Do major corporations want to do business in these areas? Maybe it's time for another one of those broad-based corporate boycotts of an entire state? And for the individuals, well, the gun isn't worth much if you don't shoot it, and that means a range of some kind. So does it become a pastime to just record who shows up at the ranges, and then send a hot tip to the feds for weapons violations? Sort of a federal endorsement for SWATing of a specific type of person?
One of the mistakes I feel like people on all sides of the culture war make, is failing to ask "what follows?" Blues do not know how to lose. Many of them don't appear aware that losing is even something possible for their side. When they reach a failure condition, they will escalate, and they will use their existing social, economic and political power to do it. The 2020 riots lasted months, and saw no shortage of violence. For the most part, Reds hunkered down and let the Blues own the streets. Those few who did otherwise were made examples of, and it seems pretty clear to me that those examples were taken to heart by the public at large. People stopped going out, stopped attempting defense or intervention, let the rioters have their way. Rooftop Koreans didn't really happen this time, not like in the 90s. Next time, will we see any attempt at all? Or will the advice be "learn from Kyle, learn from Bacca, stay the fuck home"?
All of this is speculative, and quite pessimistic, none of it is the actual end of the line, and it elides a number of other ways things could go. I guess the core of it is that I'm skeptical that Reds can defy formal power structures the way Blues historically have, and expect a good outcome. I think the most likely outcome is yet more escalation.
More options
Context Copy link