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 -
Haven't seen a thread yet on the gay bar shooting last weekend so I figured I would start it.
Sticking to facts in this post, opinion will go in reply.
The shooter killed 5 and injured 25
The shooter is a 22 year old, Anderson Lee Aldrich
The shooter previously was charged after he threatened his mother with homemade explosives and kidnapped her, but the charges were dropped
The shooter is the grandson of a prominent local Republican
The shooter was stopped by a drag queen combat veteran, who used his high heels to stomp him
Now for the opinion:
I believe that speech is powerful. Words are a means we use to convince other minds of beliefs about the world. Minds act upon those beliefs.
At present, there is a powerful right wing-meme that many people, some LGBT and some not, mostly democrats, are attempting to sexually confuse children for nefarious purposes. This is often described as "grooming" in order to equivocate with sexual abuse children.
Insofar as the reasonable man's reaction to a co-ordinated effort to sexually abuse children is not "I should vote about this and if I get outvoted, I should allow my children to be sexually abused", the actions of the shooter are completely predictable.
You should take care to think about the consequences of the speech you use. If someone were to be persuaded by your argument, what would that cause them to do?
You aren't reponsible for every nutcase or moron on your team. But you are responsible for the logical consequence of your ideas. I know of no society that believes they should be having free and open debates and votes about whether teachers should be permitted to sexually abuse children. If you really believe this, you should act the same as if they proposed legalizing Cannabalism. There is no debate with barbarians, only the sword.
I'm gonna deny this.
I mean, I also object to its premises: I don't think you've got sufficient evidence for his motivations (yet! maybe you're guessing right, but you're guessing), and I don't think you cared about examples with opposing valence like the Dayton Shooter (which turned out to not be motivated by his left-wing politics or the demographics of the bar he targeted), or the planned attack on Kavanaugh. I don't think you'd accept the same games with any of the 'inevitable' consequences of police deescalation. I don't think you'd suddenly stop blaming people if they merely said that people advocating the availability of Gender Neutral in school libraries were merely violating the boundaries of parents. And I can demonstrate that you're not going to limit this object to the specific matter of sexuality, but also to immigration.
But more deeply, same as last time: no. The theory that someone is responsible for the bad actions of a crazed actor taking the funhouse mirror of a bad game of telephone of their actual argument is not good as political, moral, or normative philosophy. Not just in the obvious stupid ways where you're incentivizing future mass murderers by making clear that they could get outsized publicity and undermine the political opponents by selecting their targets carefully.
The more blunt way where turning all arguments into debates over the "reasonable man's reaction" rather than their actual truth value is insipid. Do you realize the natural consequences of this position? Do you realize why neither I nor you should spell them out?
What do you think would happen if you were to go to LibsOfTikTok's audience and tell them than any reasonable man, seeing what they've seen, should commit horrific acts, instead of commenting against the representativeness and accuracy of what they've seen? Of course, that's not the point, here. You want the referee to step in, and give a timeout and a five-yard penalty, and maybe a yellow card. What possible consequence could come from trying to do that for a tenth of the American population?
I honestly think the increase in the use of "groomer" is because people no longer care to be reasonable. Which isn't to say there there's no good reason to use the word, since I do believe that this modern phenomenon of "grooming" is a real thing that warrants the label in some form. But it is impossible to ignore its more salacious connotations.
Reasonsble concerns were registered, reasonable arguments were made, and the response was to accuse one of wanting trans/gay kids to die. There's clearly no oasis of high-minded discourse down that road. So if the battle requires responding in kind - tainting one's enemies as kid-fuckers - and there's more mileage to get from that, so be it.
This will, of course, result in innocent casualties. And apparently I'm supposed to be angry at the Right when they occur, but all I can summon is disdain for a Left that chose this ball, picked it up, and ran the whole field before the other team knew there was a game on. Shouldn't their steadfast refusal to entertain any sensible debate be held in judgment when these totally predictable consequences occur, even just a little bit?
Here and elsewhere I read commentary about how the "groomer" meme has gone too far, and the Right needs to talk more in a way that invites better understanding and doesn't cast heat at potential innocent bystanders. And I want to yawn so hard that my jaw falls into my coffee mug, because boy if we were all supposed to really care about this, we should have been less idiotic and cavalier about 'trans issues' as we have been the last few years. Best I can do is flail my arms and say "You were forewarned about playing with fire".
Throw the shithead in prison and give him the chair. I'll donate 20 bucks to the execution fund. But there will be no marches of solidarity or moments of introspection, because the CW still marches on around us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link