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 -
An article just came out about the government supported grocery store in Kansas: https://archive.is/lNlvD . But the store is currently a total disaster:
This seems to be a hit piece targeting the NYC mayor favorite Zhoran who wants to bring government run grocery stores to NYC
But it's unclear whether the failure of the store is due to mismanagement or criminals establishing a base nearby:
It also may simply be that there are too many grocery stores for that area:
But there's also more to the story - and a bit of misrepresentation but not outright lie slipped in by the WP reporter. Sun Fresh market isn't government run and never was. Sun Fresh market was actually a successful independent grocery store for over 25 years. The city does own the strip mall itself, and it seems that the store moved to this location in 2018, probably after getting some generous incentives from the city. After the Lipari guy called it quits, this nonprofit got their hands on the store (probably in a move set up by the city itself). But the city doesn't actually run the store.
So there are a lot of threads going on with this article, but my take on this is that the store was probably doing okay before 2020, but then Fentanyl Floyd's crime wave absolutely decimated the area. Seeing the situation, the store owner bailed out, but the city, not wanting to see their strip mall project go bust, gave a nonprofit millions in cash to keep the store afloat. On the other hand, it seems that the other stores in the strip mall are doing ok according to google maps, so it could just be that the nonprofit currently running the store is wildly incompetent.
Overall I think there's not enough here to get a good read on what might happen with Zohran, but my bias is still that government incompetence has no bounds. Aldi is less than 1 mile away and they are doing ok according to google. And even though the city isn't running the store directly they are throwing millions into it without figuring out how to get out of the hole.
You can just call it the Floyd crime wave. I think everyone here already knows he was on fentanyl and that there is an argument that it would have killed him regardless of how he was restrained, you don't need to remind us every time you say his name. (Though I'd actually be interested if anyone has ever done a reasonably credible/objective look into that argument, since from what I've seen the trial, mainstream media, and conservative media all seem unreliable.) "Fentanyl Floyd" is approaching "Amerikkka"/"Drumpf"/"Demonrat" levels of nicknames that do nothing besides signal your politics in a way that can easily come across as obnoxious.
I assume this was supposed to be a link.
It's defense against the enemy. I won't "say his name."
Fixed the link
But you did say his name. You typed "Floyd", right there in your message, clear as a bell. If you had some objection to typing out the full "George Floyd", well, I think that's pretty silly, but no one's asking you to do that; you could just have removed "Fentanyl" and said "Floyd's crime wave".
What's in a name fundamentally? I can certainly talk about the football player named George Floyd as much as I want without "saying his name." So there's certainly more to it than just saying the words that match up to someone's name.
To say someone's name, it requires saying the words that match up with that person's name, as well as context that disambiguates the reference to a particular person. I would also argue that using a derogatory nickname for someone doesn't count, even if that nickname contains the words that match that person's name. The reason being is that those words aren't enough to refer to that person, and the denunciation itself makes it possible to understand what person is being talked about.
It's important that it's a derogatory denunciation, rather than an objective fact, as saying the words in someone's name, along with objective but negative facts about that person, can still carry an implied acknowledgement of that person.
So it's in fact important to use the derogatory phrasing, even over saying "[word], who died from fentanyl ..." because that's simply staging an objective fact, not necessarily denouncing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You don't have to say anyone's name, but "Fentanyl Floyd" is just obnoxious boo-lighting and very explicitly waging the culture war.
The autopsy report found 11 ng/mL of Fentanyl and 5.6 ng/mL of Norfentanyl. The story I've read online (which I'm not qualified to judge) goes like this:
DUI blood test sometimes show that drivers have 11 ng/mL of Fentanyl in their blood. Habitual users build up protective tolerance and can remain functional despite a level of Fentanyl in their blood that would be rapidly fatal to a naive user. The level of Norfentanyl adds nuance. The typical overdose death of a naive user occurs before their body can metabolise Fentanyl to Norfentanyl. The presence of Norfentanyl proves that George Floyd had a protective tolerance and had had a high level of Fentanyl in his blood for a while, giving his body time to metabolize it.
This is a load bearing part of the criminal prosecution of Derek Chauvin. Without Floyd's habit and tolerance, 11 ng/mL is a lethal dose, explaining away Floyd's death and handing Chauvin a get out of jail free card. It is important context for understanding policing in America. The police have to deal with junkies who are high on pain killing drugs at the time of their arrest, putting the police at risk of wild, random violence.
Had the Fentanyl story been pure invention, intended to muddy the waters, then keeping it alive by calling him "Fentanyl Floyd" would indeed be just obnoxious boo-lighting. But it is a vital part of the story. Without it, a nerdy, timid forger is attempting to quietly pass his $20 bill, gets caught and surrenders without resistance. Then he is knelt on and killed for being Black. That is a very different story. Trying to airbrush Fentanyl from the story is waging culture war.
Unimpressive sophistry. No one is demanding anyone "airbrush fentanyl from the story."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok I'll try to hold back next time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is giving me Harry Potter vibes.
More options
Context Copy link
George Floyd was not a good man, but he did not deserve to die.
I will agree that at the time of final arrest he was not going to be charged with any crimes serious enough to merit death- but he has committed some of those crimes in his life.
More options
Context Copy link
I think he did. Anyone who points a gun at a pregnant women while robbing their house deserves to hang
Didn't that particular anecdote turn out to be an exaggeration?
I don't think it was ever confirmed that she was pregnant. It doesn't appear any journalist ever bothered to track down this particular Aracely Henriquez.
More options
Context Copy link
Still in his Wikipedia. Here is a WaPo article strongly hinting it was made up with zero evidence (ie they took the five year plea because they were convinced they’d receive no justice—yet the paper didn’t include any of the evidence supporting the conviction). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/george-floyd-america/policing/
One of the HPD officers that had arrested Floyd is serving a 60 year sentence for felony murder for the 2019 Harding Street raid, a "drug bust" on fabricated evidence that killed two white homeowners with no major criminal history.
So we now believe the victim who identified Floyd is lying because an officer involved happened to be dirty?
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
Shame on him killing himself via fent overdose then
Shame on the government for allowing a fentanyl crisis to fester and claim lives, you might equally say.
Yes I agree. Shame on the government forces that allowed open air drug markets in major US city centers, released drug dealers over and over again after arrest, and turned a blind eye to public drug consumption in the middle of the sidewalk and at bus stops.
More options
Context Copy link
If you believe in the government as mother and father of us all. Outside that, over 99 times out of 100 you can avoid getting involved with fentanyl by not indulging in recreational opiates... which are, after all, illegal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument."
It's a good rule, whatever your political opinions are. If it is violated often enough, this place will just become another cesspit like Reddit or X, where most of the political discourse is just attention bait and emotional venting.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think your political enemies like references to the Floyd/Ferguson Effect regardless of what you call him. If anything derogatory partisan nicknames mean such references are less likely to be taken seriously by those they might otherwise be worried about you convincing.
Good idea I can say that, as it's a way to refer to the event without saying his name. But I feel like it's less understandable for the average reader, who probably forgot where Ferguson is but remembers the name.
Different event, same effect. The Ferguson Effect refers to the rise in crime following the death of Michael Brown, and by extension any similar event. (Michael Brown being the guy who protestors chanted "hands up don't shoot" over, who wasn't actually holding his hands up and was in fact attacking the officer and grabbing his gun shortly after having robbed a store and assaulted the store employee). It was somewhat contentious whether the Ferguson effect was real, but then we had the Floyd Effect which was much bigger and less ambiguous.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, is it so terrible to say these people's names? You can obviously disagree with the way in which the events have been framed and understood, but at some point you're just giving ammunition to your opposition who can make the reasonable claim that you're trying to dehumanize Floyd or Trayvon by not treating them as people worthy of being referenced, even when relevant, and even to criticize them.
Was thinking of making a higher level post but I'll just reply here:
Imagine if the enemy said "doing the hokey pokey is an endorsement of our cause." Or alternatively "doing the hokey pokey is pledging loyalty our cause." Well I would find it a pretty compelling reason to stop doing the hokey pokey. Even though I might like that dance, and have to sit out for that at the school dance. Refusing to do it is enough of a low cost to me that I'm willing to cede the ground and let them make the hokey pokey an enemy loyalty pledge.
You might say that I should do the hokey pokey anyways to try to reclaim it from the enemy. That might be reasonable depending on the specific factors at the time, but when the overwhelming number of people doing it are loyal enemy servants, that's difficult. All the genuine hokey pokey lovers in the world aren't enough to outnumber the enemy's loyalists, and unfortunately they're all going to be misjudged as being part of the enemy's group just for doing what they love. They'll probably have to post a sign outside their gym that says "we don't endorse the enemy." But unfortunately holding that ground is not a battle that can be easily won.
Well, sure, but who on earth says that saying the name 'George Floyd' or that saying the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' (in reference to a movement and organisation called Black Lives Matter) constitutes endorsing anything? I don't see the concern here.
I can understand not wanting to use certain phrases because they frame an issue in a way you disagree with. For instance, I avoid saying the phrase 'marriage equality' because I think it is a gross mischaracterisation of the issue, and if I used it I think I would be accepting a strawman. Likewise there's a tic among some activists where they refuse to use the phrase 'pro-life' in any circumstances; they instead refer to pro-life activists as 'anti-abortion activists'.
But 'George Floyd' is just a name, and saying it implies nothing about whether one supports or opposes any political issue related to him. Likewise BLM is the name of an organisation. I don't think that saying it in that context constitutes a kind of endorsement.
By saying the name of the organization, you have also said the words in that phrase. By saying those words, you have necessarily incepted the idea represented by that phrase into the mind of yourself and the minds of your readers. Even though the idea may be completely irrelevant to your intended discussion denouncing or even defending the organization, you have necessarily made the idea represented by the phrase a topic of contemplation and discussion, even against your best intention.
You have also contributed to the dissemination of that idea as readers who have not heard that phrase before will be exposed to it now. Especially without an explicit denial of the idea, introducing a new idea to someone carries a small implicit endorsement. This might not be particularly an issue with the phrase that has the same words as the name of that organization, but in general I believe this rule applies.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm ok with that -- obviously that's what they are!
There's even the movement to stop saying pro-choice (among pro-choicers) and instead say pro-abortion. I'm fine with this. Obviously whether abortion is acceptable and should be legal, and under what circumstances, is the core of the debate. I'm happy to use the euphemisms, because it's also true that pro-lifers believe they're defending life and pro-choicers believe they're defending the ability to choose whether to carry a child to term.
I get the "marriage equality" thing, but honestly I'm fine with that term too -- if you believe gay marriage is meaningfully different from straight marriage, obviously you think it's unequal, and should be so legally, in an important way! Of course, that's strategically dangerous, but I would rather people just bite the bullet of whatever it is they want to argue for and own it. But I'm also happy with the term "traditional marriage," though I'd prefer if advocates for that opposed "we just don't love each other anymore" divorces as well.
I guess I just take the "avoid semantic debates" thing pretty far -- for the most part, I'll use any term you want me to use, I'd prefer to think about the object level.
I did a fun excercise once, where I tried to exploit the euphemism treadmill for humor or for trolling (not that I commend trolling). I just found the most out-there, unknown, transgressive, new-style, politically-correct term for something, then used it to say something deeply offensive about that thing:
"People of color should go back to where they came from."
"Birthing people should be forced to have at least one child a year." (This phrase is just dumb, I see why radfems hated it so much.)
"BIPOC are a major threat to the social fabric of the United States."
"The LGBTQIA2S+ community is made up entirely of groomers."
"Trans women of color are the worst people on the planet."
(For the record, I don't believe any of this. These are merely examples.)
Doesn't have the same valence as using a slur, does it? And yet these phrases communicate a pretty harsh claim. But stripped of opposing-tribe markers, the actual object-level claim emerges like Neo from the uterine vat of the Matrix, and can be discussed.
So I guess that's why I cringe at euphemistic avoidance of opposing-tribe terms: I'd rather make a harsh claim in a way that might get mistaken for an opposing-tribe claim than signal my in-group in a way that burdens my claim with its smell. It's not about claiming territory for me, it's about exploring ideas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The solution is to do a modified hokey pokey. You're signaling to your ingroup your resistance while refusing to let the outgroup dictate your actions. One perhaps silly example is that I will still draw a rainbow, despite opposing gender ideology, but will draw it in the classical style using just red, yellow, and blue.
I think this puts me on the side of using 'Fentanyl Floyd' at least directionally. I think I just disagree with that phrase in particular. It seems uncouth and disrespectful. You don't modify the hokey pokey by twerking in the middle of it because you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
Nah, man, this is silly. His name was George Floyd. That's simply a fact. He was a person of historical significance who had a name that we use the same way we use names to refer to anyone else when we're trying to convey information about who we're discussing. You are not "Saying his name" in the liturgical BLM sense just because you use his name to communicate data.
You can despise him and the Black Lives Matter movement all you want, but literally Voldemorting words is giving "the enemy" more power over you than if you just used accurate names and descriptions for things. Notice that I typed "Black Lives Matter" without in any way implying that I endorse the movement, because everyone understands what I mean by referring to it.
These awkward affectations you use to avoid typing words remind me of Zoomers saying "unalived" or "grape" - originally because they had to censor certain words on TikTok, but now it's just becoming a Zoomer thing that you can't Say Those Words.
It's ridiculous and it isn't making some political point or p0wning the Wokes, it's just you contributing to the obfuscation of language.
This post reminds me of the "His name was Robert Paulson" scene from Fight Club. Just a heads up.
More options
Context Copy link
Thought about this more and wrote a more direct response in a separate comment: https://www.themotte.org/post/2254/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/348256?context=8#context
More options
Context Copy link
I've never heard of "grape", but I don't spend much time on the Tok. "Unalived" is just an inherently funny word, it sounds like a Monty Python joke about bureaucratic language. I'd only use it as part of a joke.
Of course, "died" is a phrase people don't like saying, "passed away" is the old euphemism.
I don't know anyone who won't say "died" in person, but maybe this is a younger zoomer thing that I'm too unbrainrotted to understand.
More options
Context Copy link
I get some sort of autistic pleasure from obfuscating language (my friends and I came up with an insane number of codewords for too many things) so maybe you caught me in some sort of subconscious trap. Irregardless, I will still not say the words.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Didnt this exact thing happen to the 'Ok' handsign a while ago. It was hilarious.
More options
Context Copy link
At some point, this is just you allowing people you describe as your enemy to literally dictate what you can and can't do, which isn't a position of power, strength, or strategy.
If they get that much on your nerves, it's them who has power over you, not you over them. You're not defeating Newspeak by speaking in the old way -- you're creating a contra-Newspeak that's just as controlling, just as silly, and just as petty as what your opponents are doing. The fact that you're saying this is going on even in your own thoughts actually indicates that the Newspeak is working on you, not that you're resisting it. To put it in conflict terms, like you like, the enemy's in your head, which means you've already lost.
Alternatively, they might just continue to do what they love, and keep
grillingdancing. Because, just perhaps, they won't mind if someone misjudges them as "part of the enemy's group," because they'd rather live life to the fullest than let ingroup/outgroup dynamics shape every aspect of their life.I'm going to say to you what I say to the woke left when they similarly respond with fierce intensity to things the right does: living this way sounds absolutely exhausting, and soul-destroying, not life-giving or powerful.
Honestly I don't think about it 99% of the time because I just grill in irl and the enemy hasn't come for that yet.
If I was a hardcore hokey pokey dancer then sure this would be a major problem but it's really not an issue.
This is in fact true when the enemy controls all of the institutions and positions of power. Where for many people, simply having a job requires many implicit and several explicit oaths of loyalty to the enemy. I am fortunate enough that I am not one of those people.
You also have to remember, the enemy has been doing the hokey pokey and gloating about it, nonstop, 24/7 for 5 years now - on the streets, on tv, at work, in the papers, at the hospital, in the technical documentation for some random API, etc. I'm not the one who made it such a big deal. And NO, I will NOT do it.
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
…”the enemy”?
I in fact have always referred to the enemy as the enemy, for at least 5+ years of posting here, even on the reddit. Though I have since nuked most old comments.
More options
Context Copy link
The Outgroup, which must be booed at every opportunity.
Though I may use certain tortured phrasing, in order to avoid the enemy's newspeak, my posting is not substantially boo outgroup.
In another example, I will never ever say "███████ l█v█s m█tt█r", even to denounce the movement or group, because simply by saying it the enemy has won a victory over you.
Consider the hypothetical. Suppose Israel named a military unit "Allah is not real and muhammad was a big dum dum." Now would an Iranian newspaper be able to simply report "The Israeli military unit 'Allah is not real and muhammad was a big dum dum' is committing genocide"? I think not. It's a trick meant to put those words in your mouth and I will not play along.
The parallel comments already said about as much, but Iranian media does not represent the standard of communication that I would wish for this community to aspire to.
You may consider your rationale as being analogous to "my outgroup shoots at me, so I would be stupid to unilaterally disarm and not shoot at them", but perhaps it is more akin to "my outgroup has bad hygiene, so I would be stupid to unilaterally disarm and take a shower".
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, I think they would report that, because it would be a fantastic way to demonstrate that Israelis are infidels and blasphemers.
I also think if you're at the point of comparing yourself to the way Muslims respond to blasphemy, you should be seriously evaluating the emotional intensity you're applying to politics.
More options
Context Copy link
If the Iranians can't use certain turns of phrase I consider it a weakness born out of irrationality. If they think it's a trick to make them say it they might be correct; more the fools them that they are open to any harm from taking the trick on the chest.
Bleeping it out doesn't make you say it any less than bleeping out one letter from the word "fuck" makes it any less obscene.
"If you mince your oaths, the Lord still knows you took His name in vain, he just sees you're a fucking pussy as well"
More options
Context Copy link
Society has certainly decided that bleeping out the fuck word makes the work less obscene. See all those songs that are bleeped out.
I also didn't say the word that you may expect in that censor bar in my head when I typed it out. I just meta-determined that placing those censor bars would be a way to refer to that phrase without saying it directly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I just use BLM personally.
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