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 -
I don't think non-moderate lefties get it.
Many righties didn't even like Charlie Kirk that much. He was milquetoast on certain ideas, he supported Israel a little too readily for some people's tastes, he seemed like he was there mainly to keep hard-righty ideas from gaining traction. His twitter game was pretty tame/lame.
But he was in fact a righty, and he represented the compromise position. As long as he was allowed to go around on college campuses and pull his 'gotcha' debate tactics, at least there was lip service paid to the exchange of ideas as the preferred method of resolving differences. The discourse was crappy, but at least it was discourse.
Shooting the guy? Well you've just announced that you do not care for debate of even moderate ideas, and you'll kill someone for disagreeing with you with the most civil manners imaginable. Tapdancing on his grave is advertising that you cannot be reasoned out of your position, and your position entails and accepts killing those you disagree with.
The red tribe sent an emissary to the neighboring tribe, he extended his hand in friendship, and one of the blue tribe (probably) hacked his head off and the rest of the tribe pissed on the corpse? What do you think comes next?
Its not QUITE the equivalent of killing John Wick's dog, but its getting at the same idea. It was one of the few things convincing hard righties that talking was still worthwhile.
This isn't a change in anything. There will always be a certain number of people on either side of the aisle who will celebrate violence against the other side, and the only thing that's different now than 15 years ago is that more of them are on the internet by virtue of fewer of them being too old to go on Reddit. I couldn't tell you the number of crabby old guys in bars who talked openly about the "ten cent solution" during the Obama presidency.
I don't think this is plausible. Since 2010, the stature and influence of an ideology that explicitly rejects argument in favor of shutting up through force has been ascendant. Ideologues of opposing stripes have taken that as permission to do the same thing. The idea that this has had no influence in the proclivity of people who follow the ideology to celebrating the murder of people they disagree with would require a pretty extraordinary ability for populations to be resistant to memes about political violence that I don't think is reflected in any other topic. Especially since political violence against people someone dislikes is one of the most enticing things in the world, and it's uncommon in time that qualms about using it were nearly as common as it is now.
I'll say, I don't think it's a coincidence that I grew up in a blue area in the 90s and 00s and ended up believing that political violence in response to arguments, no matter how evil the arguments, is unacceptable, which also happened to be the dogma in those areas at the time. I think the ideologies that are hegemonic in your environment do tend to have influence on you such that population rates of adoption of ideas can change if the hegemonic ideology changes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nothing. Left-wing influencers are not going to fear for their lives. Antifa is not going to be met with instant lethal violence. NPR stations are not going to be torched. Grievance studies departments are not going to be physically attacked. Meetings of Young Americans for Socialism (not a real org) are not going to broken up by force. For the right, violence is a switch, not a dial, and it rusted in the off position a long time ago.
The big change will probably be the right supporting gun control.
It's not so much the switch that rusted off, more that it is routinely glued stuck to make sure it can not be flipped. This is done by 'conservatives' and the like for various reasons. Be that their own comfortable lives they want to keep safe for themselves, or a complex set of responses to being completely out of control with regards to media and power. So they instinctively know that sticking their neck out in support of anything will lead to it getting chopped off. To that extent the drive people have to glue the switch stuck can be summed up as greed and cowardice.
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. The only thing that will rouse the comfortable Right to civil unrest is if their wallets get light. The stock market, housing market, consumer prices, etc. have hypnotized the Right into a state of indolent satisfaction. Rich white boomers have much more to lose than poor leftists. So the Right will grunt and groan on X for a while until the next news story chugs along.
It's prudent to drive the economy into the ground on purpose, by any means necessary, to raise consciousness
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that depends on whether the big guy in charge cracks enough heads to make it clear that vigilantes won't be necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link