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 -
You are correct that the violence is currently sporadic and unlikely to escalate. What you are missing is that a precedent is being set here for the level of background violence "we" are supposed to tolerate, but that standard is being set largely by social institutions that are predominantly Blue and are sympathetic to Blue violence. At some point in the not-to-distant future, I think it is likely that it will be Reds committing the sporadic violence. When that happens, the Blues are not going to want to tolerate it, and the Reds are not going to accept an abrupt demand for a return to order and decorum. That is when things will go sideways.
I'm confident we could game out how the conversation goes, right here and now. Sometime in the next five years, a popular Democrat gets topped by an assassin. Someone comes in here and says The Culture War has Gone Too Far, we have to get a handle on the violence guys, sure things happened in the past, but now it's serious, it's time to crack down on the hate and radicalism! How do you think that conversation goes?
I think you are being a little unfair here. I do not remember anyone on the Motte (even Blue folks like me) reacting to the attempted Trump assassination with anything other than disapproval. Maybe I didn't express enough horror and disapproval for you, but no one thought it was no big deal or worse, something to be encouraged. And by and large, I did not see that reaction even among my most leftie friends. Sure, TikTok was full of people screaming in dismay that the shooter missed, but do you think that actually represents mainstream Blue tribe thinking?
I think more Americans of all political stripes think trying to assassinate politicians (even politicians they dislike) is bad, than you are willing to credit.
On one hand, anyone is a broad term. But they probably don't count.
More seriously, The Schism had less commentary on all three assassination attempts combined, between Trump and Kavanaugh, in an entire year, than it spent debating whether Trump was fascist in a single week before the 2024 election. (answer: of course, it's just a matter of how fascist). Tesla arsons, Paul Kessler, new phone who dis?
That's the subreddit that came into existence
because people here didn't downvote a post FCfromSSC ate a ban over hard enoughabout advocacy of violence. Maybe direct advocacy is not universal among Blue Tribers (though I'll point again to Ken White or my tumblr feed and its regular DenyDefendDepose fandom), and maybe it's not here (modulo whenever Impassionata makes their next alt), but they don't care enough to comment on it; does anyone think there's a Blue Tribe locale that's going to be any stronger?But the existence of guillotine tumblr is besides the point: conflating universal advocacy with the limited loud disavowal is still comes across as a dramatic move of the goalposts.
The problem's going to come about the next time that Blue Tribers want Red Tribers to care about this sorta violence aimed at Blues, and everyone involved promises that they've got examples somewhere, just left them in their other pants. The Blue Tribers might well have genuinely opposed it at a deep level, personally. Just, you know, not enough to do anything, or even hear about it.
This isn't some purely theoretical example, nor one specific to political violence. But it's particularly severe, here.
I specifically said I don't remember, because I was pretty sure you'd post a link to something a banned troll said once.
Does the Schism care more about debating whether Trump is a fascist than whether shooting Trump is a bad thing? Yes, color me surprised. (And color me unsurprised your mad hate for Trace has you still harping on a nearly dead subreddit years later.)
I don't know if this is a dig at me or at the Schism or Blues in general. What, specifically, would you like me to have done about the attempted Trump assassination? If I tell you that indeed, I have gotten into fights (and been blocked/defriended) for arguing with lefties about how fucked up it is to cheer on political violence directed against people we don't like, I assume you will not believe me because I'm not giving you links so you can enlarge your dossier on me. *
You and FC are claiming Blues basically don't care about political violence until it touches them, and then they'll cry real loud about it. I think every tribe cares a lot more about their own side being hurt and the degree to which they object to violence done to the other side depends on how opposed they are on principle to political violence and suppressing other people's rights.
The popularity of Trace on X gives me some hope, the popularity of Kulak gives me less. I suppose for you those values are reversed.
* Yes, this happened. A small number, and most of my leftie friends agreed with me it was fucked up. But I've seen it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the relative numbers are less important than this statement suggests at first glance, that the relative status and distribution are underrated concerns by the statement, and that there's a great deal of room for people to consider something "bad" without actually meaningfully wanting to condemn or prevent it, until it's too late and the damage is done.
Luigi and Thomas Crooks are terrible and rare. Luigi stans somewhat less so on both counts. But people that will excuse them- "it's just stupid jokes, they're just young and full of passionate intensity, you've got to understand,
kids on campus" those people abound.So when considering a question like
I wouldn't know how to answer, it's too slippery. There is so much room for "but," hedging, selective attention, selective indifference that puzzling it out becomes impossible, and it is in those areas where the most damage is done to the social fabric. The sympathizer's shrug does more damage than the rioter's brick, because there's so many more of the former.
Do I think you or Scott would cheer if Crooks had hit Trump square on? Of course not. You least of all, and I'm sure your tragic post would be heartfelt and eloquent. But I'm not so confident Scott would feel a need to publicly mourn the return of political assassination to the US, and most mainstream Blue pundits would be vastly less bothered. He wouldn't be cold on the table before we'd hear "This is a tragedy, but-." Justifications. Excuses. Vibes? Papers? Redefinition of terms to not apply, so they can only be aimed one way? He was uniquely terrible! A threat to democracy! His rhetoric frightened desperate people!
All of those mainstream Blues would say, in a vacuum, that Political Assassinations Are Bad. But it would turn out this one is less bad, that we don't need to Have A Conversation about it, that it's unique and not a symptom of deeper rot. Nationwide rioters are just an idea. Wear a buffalo head into the Capitol, those guys are thugs and terrorists.
And likewise, to the right! Nationwide rioters are thugs and terrorists, Buffalo Guy was just committing mild trespass. If it had been Biden, no doubt Reds would be... well, having lots of fishing accidents, but also vaguely sympathizing, if they think they wouldn't be depersoned for it. I am not trying to cast one side without sin, here.
Only meandering along that the sympathizers should not be underestimated while we're making to not overestimate the actual advocates.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not so sure about this. I don't remember seeing anyone on the Motte reacting that way, but of the people I interacted with IRL in my very blue bubble I was the only one who wasn't openly wishing the shooter hadn't missed. Most at least had the good grace to only do so in conversations held in private rather than public locations, but they were said openly to everyone present to widespread agreement. How much of that was puffery versus how much of it was serious is another question...
I think the important question isn't whether or not they think it is bad, but whether they think it is or may become necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The broader media tried to make Rittenhouse, J6, etc into ‘a national conversation about Republican violence’ already. They failed. They failed at making the Robert Dear shooting and the Paul Pelosi attack 9/11 tier incidents. The media is already pushing a ‘right wing domestic terrorism’ narrative by calling spray paint at a planned parenthood worse than a church bombing.
More broadly, I’m skeptical that there will be a republican version of antifa. Republicans are just genuinely less given to crazy radicalism spirals. There’s also no mentality of tit-for-tat limited exchange of violence; the Republican ideology holds that when someone just keeps punching you you shoot them.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it important to ask in this context what was the last time a popular Republican was assassinated? Because I have no idea.
The last republican president assassinated was Lincoln in 1865. The last successful assassination period was JFK. The last attempt was Reagan in 1980. In general, times of massive popular unrest, highly polarized politics. Not really something that I’d worry about.
No, Garfield and McKinley were both Republicans.
More options
Context Copy link
No, the last thing I'd call a full-blown assassination attempt against a sitting president was in 2020 when some lady sent ricin to Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
The last attempt was literally in 2024 (albeit the Republican wasn’t currently president but of course had been president and was running again)
You also had the Bernie supporter targeting the republicans in the congressional baseball game.
Does Teddy Roosevelt count? He had broken away from the Republicans to become the founder of the Progressives, and was shot while running for a third term, and like Trump and Reagan, survived. The political landscape at that time was so utterly different, though, I wonder how to count the other assassinations and attempts between Lincoln and Kennedy.
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