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 story of 70+ people being murdered is of course going to circulate at the time it's happening and not be completely buried. The question is why is it considered literal bar trivia? As mentioned, many of us hadn't heard of the killings at all and have heard of many Dahmer-type serial killers. The obvious reason is the racial angle. Five Klan members killing 70+ black people in the 1970s would still be widely discussed today, but I'm not sure what could convince you of that.
I'm not suggesting a sensational Top Men coverup of the story. It's more mundane than that. People in media will highlight and dwell on stories that conform to their world view and forget or downplay those that counter their worldview.
You are being a bit fast and loose with that 70 number, that is a theoretical maximum that was hypothesized by someone who might or might not be credible.
Anyhow, I have no idea why many of you hadn't heard of it, but I have to say that a lot of people here are poorly informed about a lot of things.
But, here is the real problem. You say:
The problem is that I have never said otherwise. That is obviously true. My claim was very, very specific: That the comparison of the Zebra Killings to Emmitt Till is an awful example. That's what I said: "Your comparison of the Zebra murders with Emmitt Till doesn't work."
The Emmitt Till case is literally the worst possible example he could have chosen, for the reasons I have discussed at length: In a nutshell, it was part of one of the two or three most important developments in US history. In contrast, the Zebra killings seemed at the time, along with the Weathermen, SLA, etc, etc, to be part of an important development, but that turned out not to be the case. That whole movement petered out; the Civil Rights Movement did the opposite. Do you think that the OP knows who the SLA were? I doubt it; why should he? What about Black September?
Not only that, but the victim was unusually charismatic, and if it was just about the "racial angle," why is it that Medgar Evers is not as well known? What about all the other people listed here, virtually all of whom no one has heard of? Again, choosing Emmitt Till, of all possible examples, was just the worst possible choice. The OP's claim, and your own claim that "The obvious reason is the racial angle" are based on the most obvious cherry picking, based on the most superficial analysis imaginable: "One is black, and one is white, and that is all that could possibly be relevant to my comparison." That is not how fruitful comparison is done
You're correct that Emmett Till's murder had a significant impact on support for the Civil Rights movement and a 1-for-1 comparison to the Zebra killings isn't accurate. The Zebra killings did not have a historical impact of note. Likewise, it's still early, but George Floyd's murder doesn't seem to have had a long term impact on policy. We are probably experiencing some sort of Ferguson Effect with rising murders and de-policing right now, but that part will probably be short lived and will be forgotten in 20 years. In that sense, his murder is not historically significant.
You have mentioned that you're not making claims about media coverage as it relates to this topic, so feel free to ignore the rest of this. This is my primary issue (maybe not the OP's), and maybe we were talking past each other a bit.
Despite its apparent lack of historical significance, I don't think Floyd's name will disappear from mainstream media coverage in 25 years, but will be revived in mainstream press whenever useful. Similar to how Emmett Till's name appeared 0 times in NYT coverage in 1980, and 72 times in 2018. Perhaps I'm "poorly informed" that I had never heard of the Zebra killings (dozens killed). Like many, I typically rely on popular media, news media, and the education system to inform me of these stories. But I also have the feeling that if I ask 10 younger people close to me (many Californians), maybe 1 has heard of Zebra. This seems odd to me but fits a pattern of the media suddenly becoming uninterested in a mass shooting when the perpetrator's identity/motives are "off-narrative" (or being cagey with details, not publishing his picture). That was the "racial angle" I was referring to.
Thanks for the links.
More options
Context Copy link
As it happens, I am old enough that I probably heard about the Zebra killings as they happened (I seem to recall as a kid possibly confusing them with the Zodiac killer, another case that was very famous in the same time period and same locale, but also is largely forgotten), so it in particular is not a great example one way or the other. But Juneteenth might be: I went to a Juneteeth celebration 30 years ago in Oakland. If people hadn't heard of until recently, that is in part because of where they live, but that is a reason not to infer from their own lack of knowledge that it is not generally known. Similarly, people here ofren claim that issue X has not been covered in the mainstream media, when I have seen numerous articles in the NY Times. Again, people drawing incorrect inferences from their own lack of information.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link