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 -
Okay, I didn't do that. Guilty as charged. I guess every time a leftist does something violent, I need to write an effortpost criticizing it or you won't believe I actually feel strongly that leftist violence is bad? I cannot promise I will live up to this expectation, but the next time there is such an incident, feel free to ask me what I think about it.
So if I say "I do not remember this happening" that's "covering my ass" because I admit someone might have posted something I don't remember or might have missed?
I think you are being a little unreasonable here.
This is not moving the goalposts. This is my reason why I think the premise is wrong. You may disagree with it and you may think I have not argued the case sufficiently.
I mean, it's not "wrong" it's just petty and mostly irrelevant. Why should I consider your critiques of the Schism to meaningfully generalize to all Blue tribers?
You're very frustrating. I'm sure this conversation is very satisfying to you because you will get lots of upvotes and I will get lots of downvotes, but you're just being amazingly disingenuous here.
I already stated that that quote from FC, I disagree with. It's that simple. I think he's wrong. His thesis is that Blue tribers have tolerated and permitted political violence and thus normalized it (and destroyed the norm against it) and that when Red tribe turns the table and starts killing Blue tribe public figures and Blue tribe thinks this is bad, Red tribe will say "Little late, bub." (@FCfromSSC, am I mischaracterizing this?) I clearly stated I think this is wrong, and I also admitted, right in the post you are responding to, that I might be proven wrong and FC proven right. We'll probably find out sooner than I'd like, alas.
I answered the question and yet you keep writing elliptical verbose accusations of moving goalposts and not answering questions.
Very frustrating. When Trace blew up at you and told you off, we had to mod him, but man did I understand why he did it.
Probably half my (non-mod) posts here are criticizing the bad behavior of Blues. Whenever I want to get upvotes to balance the downvotes I get arguing with fan favorites like you, I can reliably agree with everyone else about the latest woke craziness.
(I am being ironic. I do not post things with consideration to whether I will get upvoted or downvoted.)
No. And I already explained that: "I'm not demanding that we find one individual that has such an opinion on all broad topics, or even that we find anyone willing to answer every single offense ever, but I'm feeling a lot closer to Diogenes than Lot, right now."
I'd be surprised if you've literally never written up some paean about something, but do you genuinely not understand why zero out of three of the highest-profile examples coming up dry might point a direction? It's not like I'm pointing to nobodies like Baca or Dolloff or Gardner here, although if you'd commented on them I'd take that, too. Or you could point me to someone who has!
No, I say it's covering your ass because when someone tried to point out people who did, here, this didn't change the slightest bit of your position or have you bring forward some different more important fact; it had you complain that I wrote about it.
Yes! Precisely! I think you've presented a threadbare argument for your case, and when evidence came up against that threadbare argument, rather than provide new evidence for your case, you jumped new steps of what anyone disagreeing with you must be dependent on.
Because they're a subreddit that was formed around and because of supposed adherence to this principle, and its importance to appeal to Blues. Because they are not selected from Blues in some way that should make them atypically willing to overlook violent rhetoric. Because I keep asking you for examples of better Blue groups and organizations, and you haven't presented any. Because I've been looking for a near-decade for better Blues groups and organizations, and haven't found any.
((and, indeed, instead find Blues that spontaneously turn out to not; both "my father-in-law jokes or 'jokes' about throwing molotov cocktails at houses with Trump signs" and "the minecraft mod guy I worked with is really proud of punching Brendan Eich and wishes he did it more" are not hypotheticals.))
Yes, and I'm trying to get an answer out of why you think it's wrong, and if those reasons are supported.
?
Did I miss something? Netstack said this was the first time Trace got modded, it was his last set of posts here, and I defended Trace in most of his last thread, where the facts demanded it. Was there something earlier? Or is this something from back on reddit?
I don't think playing to the crowd helps (and to some extent it breaks your brain), and I'd be very skeptical that people dive that far into debates between you and I to bother reading or upvoting them, or even noticing they exist.
I want to believe you, when you argue against a trend of further escalation. But what, exactly, do you think you're bringing to support this theory? If I drop a [bunch of polls](https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/new-survey-reveals-disturbing-trend-in-support-of-political-violence-president-trump-left-of-center-elon-musk-liberal (admittedly, not very robust), does that change your mind? I can show pictures of my tumblr feed, or my discord, or of forums I've once called home, and the only reason I can't show real-life is .
Dude, my effortposts are mostly about Hugo drama. FYI Impassionata's latest alt came by the other day to scream at me (personally!) about letting fascists run amok, and obviously I'm a fascist simp as evidenced by my failure to blah blah blah. (You didn't get a chance to see it, which I guess you can therefore also dismiss as unevidenced and therefore non-credible.) Amazing how the one thing I've never been wrong about, all these years, is how both sides reliably accuse me of the same thing.
Fine, I should not have said "no one." But no, I don't think AaahtheFrench and Impassionata "count" in any serious way. But I will stipulate there is a lizardman's constant for any proposition here on the Motte.
I think you are overstating the significance of TheSchism, but as for "better Blue groups and organizations," what are your criteria? Public disavowals of political violence? The Democratic Party (including Biden himself) quickly condemned the Butler shooting. So did most major newspapers and churches (including the woke ones). The GOP quickly accused Biden of inciting it. You mentioned the attempted Kavanaugh assassination (didn't make much of a splash because the guy got arrested before anything happened) and Tesla vandalism, and I'll say fine, how many Red organizations jump up to condemn attempted assassinations, vandalism, and arson directed against Blues? Some, but often with the same defectors or mealy-mouthing we see when reversed. Is your thesis, or is it not, that Blues basically have defected from a norm against political violence and Reds have not?
Okay, they're assholes. I've got some anecdotes about Red family members and coworkers too.
I think it's wrong because I do not think the majority of Americans, of whatever political stripe, support or endorse political violence. I do not think you or FC have made a convincing case that Blues have shown stronger defection tendencies than Reds on this. The most proximal comparison seems to be responses to Jan. 6 vs responses to BLM, which are usually argued on the basis of which one was worse rather than who was more consistent about condemning it. Blues, unsurprisingly, think Jan. 6 was much worse, Reds think BLM was much worse - personally I agree that the BLM riots and other follow-on effects were objectively much, much worse, but crucially, neither side thinks they are actually defending political violence because Reds mostly claim Jan. 6 was a nothingburger and Blues mostly claim the riots were "mostly peaceful protests". I think both sides are wrong, and in this case Blues are more wrong, but it still doesn't make the case you are arguing.
No, this is totally my bad. I misremembered him telling you off when it was WhiningCoil. My apologies for that one. (I think I remember you getting into it with him on Twitter recently, which probably helped derail my memory.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link