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 -
Talking about fundraisers is comparable but peripheral. Central to the rittenhouse controversy is a scissors statement about "is it reasonable to walk around with exposed guns." Central to this controversy are facts that are yet undisclosed-- that being, what exactly lead to the stabbing. It's possible that the two cases might start looking more alike, if during witness examination the prosecution makes a credible case that stabber was in some way looking for trouble (regardless of what the stabee what up to), but it also might start looking less alike, if the defense can establish a history of bullying and negative interpersonal interactions between the stabee and stabber. At this point, I think it's too early to tell, and people drawing connections are being pointlessly inflammatory.
Of course it's an escalation. But it's very rare that situations begin perfectly even. If I was having a heated argument with a five-nothing woman, by the very nature of my size, sex, and training I have already pre-escalated. If I even unconsciously clenched my fists, her bringing out a knife would be a reasonable response. Neither of us would necessarily want a fight here-- but then events might conspire to put us in conflict. I'd prefer to run, but if my back was against the wall, I might instead make a grab for the knife. Under those circumstances, it would be perfectly reasonable for her to try to stab me. Regardless of which of us comes out the victor, either of us could be plausibly at fault.
It's not peripheral to what we're actually talking about here. I really don't care to relitigate the Rittenhouse case. What @FCfromSSC pointed out was that the legal defense fund for Rittenhouse was shut down, whereas the legal defend fund for Karmelo Anthony was not.
No matter how wrong or guilty you think Rittenhouse was, would you not agree that he was entitled to a legal defense? And that people who sympathized with him had the right to donate to it? And that it would be wrong to decide whose legal defense funds people are or are not allowed to donate to?
Yes, of course the facts of the case are going to matter a lot, and we can construct hypotheticals where pulling a knife when being threatened by fists would be considered justifiable. But most of the time, it's not.
I am not rushing to judgment on the Karmelo Anthony case, because often some details emerge over time that change what everyone thinks they know, but based on what I've heard so far, if a teenager pulls a knife and stabs another teenager who was threatening, or even shoving him, I would expect him to have a hard time making a convincing case that it was justified.
To be fair, Anthony is fundraising on GiveSendGo, the same place Rittenhouse eventually got shoved to. To be less naive, I'll notice that GiveSendGo has not lost credit card processors for it (nor for the Luigi fandom), nor has a Harvard-backed organization hacked into GSG and doxxed contributors such that any have been fired.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link