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 -
The interpretation of by that employee was bizarre in that it tried to separate the rioters from Trump supporters. All I'm saying is that this isn't very reasonable - you probably don't have many non-Trump supporters rioting inside the building. This can be true even if we say that the modal supporter isn't a rioter.
Once again context matters. If I said it’s wrong to conflate Trump Voters with J6 rioters, I’d be right in certain contexts and wrong in other contexts. If we were trying to describe who J6 rioters were calling them Trump voters is probably fair. If instead we were trying to describe who Trump voters in fact are then describing them as J6 rioters is unfair.
The context here is that Trump tweeted that his voters weee patriots and should be treated fairly. Twitter people claimed that was incitement (citing dog whistle). That is, that he was really talking about J6 people; not his normal voters.
The response was “that’s bullshit — normal voters and J6 people are different and the tweet plainly is talking about normal voters.”
You seem to be focusing on the literal logical framework of the text instead of reading it in context.
You've completely missed my argument, one which I've consistently been making here and elsewhere in this thread. You're also just wrong about what the particular slack post I'm referring to was saying. That slack post came out in support of your viewpoint, seeing the tweet as not a violation. Except that person went further and implied, to my reading, that Trump's voters didn't include the rioters. I say that this is an inaccurate and very bizarre pro-Trump interpretation of what Trump said.
You're the one making it about Twitter mistreating Trump, when I never argued otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link