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 -
Well, when you thought the week was boring...
Charlie Kirk was just shot at an event, shooter in custody. There's apparently a video going around of the attack, but I haven't a desire to see it. People who have seen it are suggesting he was shot center mass in the neck, and is likely dead. That makes this the second time that a shooter targeted a conservative political figure at a political event in two years. If Trump hadn't moved his head at the last second, it would've been him, too.
I've never followed the young conservative influencers much, but Kirk always seemed like the moderate, respectable sort -- it's wild that he would be the victim of political violence and not someone like Fuentes.
I fear this is what happens when the culture war is at a fever pitch. Political violence in the US is at heights not seen since the 1970s, from riots in the 2010s and especially 2020 over police-involved shootings, to the capitol riot in 2021, to the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania, to the United Healthcare killing, to finally this murder of a political influencer. I fear for my country when I look at how divided we are, and how immanently we seem to be sliding into violence.
I guess I just find politics tiring nowadays. I vote for a Democrat and they do stupid things that conspicuously harm the outgroup. I vote for a Republican and they do stupid things that conspicuously harm the outgroup. Whether J.D. Vance or Gavin Newsom wins in 28, there will be no future in which Americans look each other eye to eye.
I actually believe things are much better in this country than people think: our economy is surprisingly resilient, we've never suffered under the kind of austerity that's defined post-colonial European governance, our infrastructure, while declining, actually functions in a way that most of the world isn't blessed with, our medical system is mired in governmental and insurance red tape yet the standard of care and state of medical research is world-class, our capacity to innovate technologically is still real and still compelling, and one of our most pressing political issues, illegal immigration, exists solely because people are willing to climb over rocks and drift on rafts simply to try and live here.
We have real problems. And intense escalations on the part of our political tribes are absolutely in the top five. We also have a severe problem with social atomization -- and these two things are related -- which has led to our intimate relationship and loneliness crisis, the rapid decline in social capital, and the technological solitary confinement of the smartphone screen which dehumanizes people like real solitary confinement while confining them to the most intense narrative possible. "If it bleeds, it leads" means that many will be led into bleeding.
I don't know how we rebuild the world, or come to a point where Americans of different views can view each other as well-intentioned. But Kirk is just the latest victim of a crisis that I don't know if there's any way to solve.
I'm pro-2A and own guns myself but there's a certain irony to outspoken 2A defenders being assassinated that's hard not to notice.
I do wonder if his last thoughts were "shit. still worth it, though". You can count on conservatives to be ethically consistent when it comes to gun rights. I don't expect anyone on the right to talk about banning the rifle used to kill him.
I'll admit to having been surprised by this post Butler. I immediately went out and bought an AR, thinking I might not be able to next week.
Now, naturally, I've bought several more for no apparent reason.
Does this ever work? If the gun actually was banned as a result, wouldn't you also need to turn in your already purchased ones?
I mean no one knows exactly what the ban would look like prior to it actually occurring. But the federal assault weapons ban of the Clinton era did not involve any confiscation or turn in process, if you owned one purchased a week before the bill passed it was yours. Ditto the NFA in the 1920s, though I believe it did impose the tax stamp process on machine guns.
I was under the impression that this doesn't happen nowadays. I don't think, for instance, that when the bump stock ban was imposed you were allowed to keep your existing bump stocks.
I mean sure it's possible, but the most recent identical ban at the federal level did not feature confiscation. And confiscation would be pretty impractical on balance. There's a chance of confiscation, and a chance of non-confiscation, but considering scenarios, for me the outcomes look something like:
No Ban: I bought a gun I always kind of wanted or intended to buy anyway, maybe for a little more money or with a little less research than I otherwise would have. Not that bad an outcome.
Ban, no confiscation: I have a gun that I wanted and intended to purchase, which I otherwise would not be able to buy.
Ban, confiscation: I lose the gun.
Ban, TSHTF and TEOTWAWKI as a result of trying to confiscate 10,000,000 firearms from unfriendly owners: Boy, sure glad I have this thing today.
No Purchase: I have a few hundred dollars I wouldn't otherwise have.
Leaving aside internet tough-guy memes about boating accidents.
Obviously you can put your own values and probabilities in here and get a lot of outcomes, but the whole thing was pretty marginal to me. I didn't move heaven and earth to do it, I drove up the road a couple miles and I spent a day's earnings.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It did in 33 (and 86) and in 94, that's why it happens so much today. Everything already out there stayed out there and started to appreciate.
More options
Context Copy link
Not if they were lost or sold in the meantime...
I think about this sometimes. Whatever else can be said, a large store of dark rifles remaining in the wild would rapidly lose any meaningful import as the people who know how to use them cycle out and the next generation cannot be trained.
I feel like if this statement were completely true, Iraq and Afghanistan would have gone a lot differently.
More options
Context Copy link
Black rifles are primarily useful as a political rallying and coordination point, not for their (considerable) efficacy in a rebellion against the government. Their absence does not significantly impede such a rebellion.
Which is why gun rights will continue to get slowly eroded by salami-slicing instead of mass confiscation, so as to ensure this coordination point — AFAICT the only one the Red Tribe has — never gets tripped. They can oppress us into extinction all they want, just by avoiding that one big, shiny tripwire.
[Citation needed]
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