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 -
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?
Where?
Kyle Rittenhouse can and should sue them. I don't know if he'll prevail, but it's worth a shot. But whether what Rittenhouse did constitutes murder is a lot closer to a reasonable opinion than that the bereaved parents of murdered Sandy Hook elementary school children are actually crisis actors.
Oh, gosh, where to begin. Let's see, Democrats saying terrible, evil things about people...
What about Hillary Clinton repeatedly calling Donald Trump a variation of "Putin's Puppet", or otherwise accusing him of capital offenses and besmirching his character? It's hard to imagine a more damning smear in the political sphere -- being a Benedict Arnold is a way to go down in history for the worse!
"But Trump is a politician, so making shit up about him isn't a big deal!"
Okay, fine. What about Mary Lewanski, who carried water for the Waukesha murderer, and said the citizens there deserved it because it was karma? She resigned from her post, admittedly, but where's the billion dollar award for the people of Waukesha? I'd link this, but she'd scrubbed her accounts -- if you Google you can find plenty of screenshots, though, don't take my word for it. The traumatized citizens of Waukesha aren't
"Okay, but she's just a member of the DNC, not a major politician, and besides, she didn't even use anyone's specific name!"
Fine, fine.
How about Rep. Haukeem Jeffries peddling various falsehoods and inflammatory bits of misinformation, such as lying about what happened in Kenosha with Kyle Rittenhouse, or the shooting of Jacob Blake, rapist, child abductor, and felon extraordinare
(you can find more quotes from him if you want, that's just one piece).
Zero respect for the rule of law, zero knowledge of the situation, throwing political weight around and advocating for the lifetime incarceration of an innocent boy who was attacked. How irresponsible, too, given the media circus surrounding Rittenhouse, he's seriously endangering him with that sort of remark -- who knows what kind of mad vigilante might be inspired to "correct" the justice system's moral failures.
You want to say Alex Jones is a piece of shit who bullies innocent people for his cause, makes up lies about their trauma, and in general deserves a harsh punishment? Fine. Get those three people above to pay out and we can talk.
Impugning a politician's loyalties or motivations is objectively less crazy than claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.
Disagreements about moral dessert is objectively less crazy than claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.
You can disagree with the framing (as I do) but it does not contradict physical reality nearly to the extent of claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.
And specifically that he does so with ludicrous bad-faith falsehoods, such as claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.
I feel like you've tried throughout this exchange to avoid grappling with the actual craziness of Alex Jones' claims.
Claiming a false flag school massacre is exactly as ludicrous as claiming Kyle Rittenhouse belongs in prison. His activities were caught on film; there is no ambiguity, which is why his trial was so decisively in his favor. It's also as ridiculous as claiming innocent children deserved to be run over.
I reject your special pleading. Alex Jones' lies and harassment are not magically worse than the left's lies and harassment.
Contentions involving "reasonable belief of serious bodily injury" and similar legal distinctions are inherently more reasonable than denying that the Sandy Hook massacre even occurred. This isn't about left versus right, it's about Alex Jones being a uniquely clownish figure across both sides of the aisle, frequently telling lies that are absurd to a degree effectively unmatched in the world of US politics. I support gun rights too, for what it's worth. We don't actually have a difference of opinion on any of the related policy matters. The only difference between us here is the difference in depths that you and I are willing to stoop in defending ludicrous lies if they are directionally aligned with our policy preferences.
Once again, I reject this special pleading. It's not going to get you anywhere.
I don't need to go anywhere; my views already won. The legal outcome is what it is.
Ah, there it is. Yes -- having a sympathetic judge is indeed the clincher. Still, I wouldn't feel too smug. The scale will tip back eventually.
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