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 -
What principles do you hold that would lead you to reject concentration camps?
My principle is that arbitrary imprisonment, the imprisonment of someone who has not committed a crime or is not suspected of having committed a crime, is a violation of human rights. This is not some rare stance. It's contained within the UDHR. It's implied by Habeas Corpus. As a legal concept, it goes back centuries if not millennia. It is the very bedrock upon which rule of law lay. And it interlocks with all other human rights. For example, a right to religion cannot be protected if the state can arbitrarily imprison people of the wrong religion anyway.
I do not believe lockdowns are in any way compatible with this idea. Certainly not as they were carried out in the UK. It was made illegal to leave your house without one of a specific list of reasons to do so. This meets the conditions of home imprisonment, as defined in Jalloh v. Home Secretary. The reason the bounds of imprisonment need to be broad is to protect people from being placed into imprisonment-like conditions and not have any legal recourse against them. I do not believe there's any "negotiation" or "democracy" than validates arbitrary imprisonment, and believe that any polity that endeavours to imprison the entire population immediately illegitimizes itself.
Because of this, it is unclear to me on what grounds supporters of lockdowns can claim to meaningfully oppose concentration camps beyond specifically rejecting concentration camps for aesthetic reasons. How can you okay the repeated arbitrary imprisonment of billions of people on the flimsiest of pretexts yet draw a sharp line only at that specific form of arbitrary imprisonment? To me, that they were imprisoned at all is the crime, not the specific details of where you then place your prisoners. Imprisoning people for no reason does not become good because you give them nice, cushy prisons. It does not help that Australia actually did set up camps, either.
Similar applies to vaccine mandates. Medical treatment without informed consent is somewhere between assault, battery and grievous bodily harm. Injections specifically are likely to be the latter because they pierce the skin. Even leaving the vaccine mandates aside, informed consent under duress due to lockdowns is a serious problem that was entirely ignored. How many people got the vaccines because they were suffering under the indignity and abuses of lockdowns, and falsely believed that submitting to vaccination would end those abuses? They would not believe it for no reason, because governments claimed that people being vaccinated would end lockdowns. Did those carrying out vaccinations early on, even before any of the mandates, ever take pause to consider whether the people they were injecting had actually given informed consent, or were instead doing so under duress?
More options
Context Copy link