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 -
Random thoughts incoming.
What I want to say is the following: The simple question of whether and in how far regular people are allowed to arm themselves determines in how far you are looking at the citizens of a republic versus the subjects of a totalitarian state. A sliding scale, of course. And a purely abstract ideal. But it appeals to my sense of aesthetics. Who would not rather be a responsible citizen among responsible citizens, together taking charge of the safety of their public places? Are we truly a domesticated species, dependant on the state to provide us with something as essential and basic as physical protection? Is it truly our lot to be slaughtered by madmen and enemies, unarmed and helpless, with only the faintest prospect of prevention or retaliation by our protector with the monopoly on violence? Or do we take pride in this, say "you may kill me, but my countrymen will avenge me"? No of course not. Instead, we acknowledge that our western societies are absolutely fucking broken, that we cannot trust our fellow man, that we'd rather have the all-powerful and utterly unlimited state oppress us all equally and close our eyes when violence does happen and just hope blindly that it passes us by.
Historically, the open carrying of weapons was usually practiced
Open carrying weapons by civilians in peacetime and without a clear threat, as a political statement, was pretty rare to my knowledge. In fact, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head (though I'm sure it did happen sometimes). Having it as the foundational principle of a society or civilization is pretty unique.
The posession but not open carrying of weapons also shows up in some scenarios. These people would keep their weapons at home or in some other secure but for them accessible location.
Arguing for the posession of guns for suicides is...weird. Even assuming that they are indeed the safest and quickest way for someone to exit. It might make sense. But it seems pretty mraginal an argument for or against allowing regular people to own guns. Suicides are, after all, actively ceasing to be members of society and civilization - in how far should the rules of that society or civilization be shaped to account for them? To some extent perhaps, but they can hardly be central to a question as important as this.
I fully agree with your opening statement that "Gun Rights are Civilization Rights". I'd like to also ask - what other rights are there, that aren't Civilization Rights? Are there rights without civilization, in any practical, enforcable and meaningful sense?
I would truly like for civilization to manifest as a republic of fellow citizens who can be trusted to arm themselves when and where they see fit. Be that to defend themselves, each other, their abstract freedom, or just to kill themselves. And I'd sure like to explore the topic of what the necessary conditions for this are, in how far we have to accept violent criminals ruining everyone's day as a price to pay, how to limit the state's ability to interfere with legal gun ownership without going full libertarian/minarchist/anarchist, what values and habits society must cultivate to arm itself safely and productively...
...but it hardly seems to matter. Gun rights are civilizational rights. Civilization is fucked in so many ways. The culture war isn't some leisurely hobby that a few terminally online PMCs engage in. It's a real large-scale conflict with real-world implications, such as mass immigration into the west without functional assimilation, western societies' inability to deal with persistent crime, superstimulus-driven brain rot, and a clear, dry, open, solid and sunny road to eternal totalitarian dystopia through technology.
And with all of those giant, open wounds eroding the foundations of free-ish, republican-ish Western civilization, we, its citizen-subjects, have utterly paralyzed ourselves by allowing the state to assume ever greater power, by limited our control over it by handing it off to distant elites, and by letting ourselves be divided by partisan conflict that neither side manages to win conclusively. Meanwhile, said state, unchecked and ever growing, does laps around us.
If there ever was such a thing as the free citizen of a western republic who went armed without ill intent as a matter of course, then his days are long over and he's exceedingly unlikely to come back.
This was your daily doompost.
More options
Context Copy link