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 -
Nobody is thinking about precedent right now. The J6 committee dog-and-pony show teaches us this almost exactly; it’s all temporary battle-winning for one side.
It's about permanent war-winning. You don't have to worry about "precedent" if your side remains in control.
Prosecuting Trump doesn’t actually do that, all it does is piss off the red tribe.
Making it clear that even if you win an election you're just going to end up in jail does a good job of deterring the other party. Same as disbarring Giuliani for having the temerity to challenge the (rather irregular) Pennsylvania election. Yes, this pisses people off, but the idea is to let them know they have no options besides submission and (futile) violence.
Violence isn't futile. the opposite.
The us government simply cannot control America if violence peaks above a certain level. Their military assets aren't sufficient for a country of 330 million with 400 million gund, their recruit pool would collapse and their ability to raise taxes and thus finance the debt would evapourate.
The American government would simply not remain stable if levels of violence reached even a dull roar. Whether it'd result in regime change or dissolution is anyone's guess
Violence is futile unless you have enough of it. The right does not.
The US government can easily control America at any likely level. They don't even have to start with violence; doing the Canadian thing of cutting dissidents off from the financial system will work wonders. But once the government starts using violence, it wins easily. The only way it wouldn't is if the military itself became divided... but the military has become politically aligned to the ruling class in the past few years, so that's no longer likely.
Dude the banking maneuver didn't even work in Canada... It lasted 3 days effected 10 people and became a scandal large enough it almost brought down the government (in the Westminster parliamentary sense, not the total system collapse sense)
If the US military tried to deploy as a security force within the US it'd immediately be drowned in the vast scale of the country, whilst simultaneously setting off a powder keg of reaction.
There's a reason the Military was so adamant it not be used during the George Floyd protests... Given the scale of the protests it wasn't obvious they'd win, and even a temporary retreat would have probably gotten out of hand
It worked, the truck protest was ended with no concessions by the government, there haven't been any large protests since, and the government then successfully withdrew the emergency act declaration to avoid scrutiny.
Because that's the other side. Had the Jan 6 protestors been a little more violent, the military would have been sent in to machine-gun them all without any issues.
Then a week later they conceded all the policies the truckers were demanding and by summer Canada had fewer restrictions than the US.
.
Jan 6th turning into a Russian style bloody Sunday would have been the end of the republic. Every single faction would have embraced armed struggle after something like 100 protestors killed
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link