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 -
Can we have a thread about Alex Jones? Apparently the "victims" of his actions are pushing for something like a trillion dollar award.
I get it, he spoke some really shitty things about some people that just lost their children in a horrendous event. I can't imagine what they're going through. But I can't get past this mental block of "Yeah he said some shitty things, but he never directed his followers to do harassment, and the parents essentially just got cyber bullied, like just walk away from the screen, seriously. There were like two incidents of real life harassment, which have been prosecuted, and also were inflicted upon the parents who chose to engage with the public media."
Am I missing something here? Why is he being destroyed so thoroughly?
What's your threshold for 'directing followers to do harassment' though? If people are motivated by lies, is the liar responsible? Are people just supposed to hear stuff like 'x is a government psyop trying to take your freedom' and just be like 'ok?'
What threshold do you suggest that leaves Alex Jones culpable but doesn't simultaneously make the DNC responsible for the BLM riots and their associated crime?
Replace "the DNC" with "significant figures of importance within the Democrats" if you prefer.
The threshold is defamation.
So the threshold is a sympathetic judge? Because there's an awful lot of defamation on the level of Alex Jones going around, and a whole lot of it isn't being punished with bankruptcy. What about every journalist and outlet who, even post-trial, smeared (falsely) Kyle Rittenhouse as a murderer or other sort of problem?
I agree that there are democrats who should say less, but i think you are significantly downplaying how inflammatory Jones' opinions are. If you say democratic pundits have similarly ridiculous views, please hit me with an example that is on the level of this, from someone roughly as recognizable as Jones. https://youtube.com/watch?v=KGAAhzreGWw
Also one comment up you suggest that the DNC was supportive of the BLM riots, then backtrack to the motte of "democratic pundits". Why even bother with the bailey if you are gonna reframe in the next sentence?
I think we both know that the DNC doesn't broadcast an opinion on events in a comparable way to a talk show.
There was no backtracking. I don't know why you interpreted what I said as a backtrack.
As for examples: the things said about Kyle Rittenhouse, as already mentioned, are absolutely on par with the things Jones said.
by whomst? People arguing the merits of self defense vs. murder is way more rational of a discourse than whatever alex jones goes on about. I understand this somewhat subjective, but are you saying you see accusing people of eating babies and worshipping satan (with no evidence) as the same level of ridiculousness as wanting a guy who (legally) shot others to be charged with murder?
You got me that the DNC says more inflammatory stuff than i thought they did, but i still think jones is way crazier than any well known dem.
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