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.
The main explicitly political violence events in the last few years I remember are
This event now with Charlie Kirk (although undetermined if it's politically motivated yet, it seems likely)
At least one of the attempts on Trump.
The shooting of Minnesota Dems a few months ago.
New Mexico twice, a firebombing of the Republican state headquarters and a Republican mayoral candidate who tried to kill the Dem winner.
That Dem office in Arizona that got shot up.
Pelosi's husband being attacked.
The kidnapping plot against Whitmer.
The antivaxxer shooting at the CDC.
That cop who died during Jan 6th.
That Texas mall shooting
The Jewish museum shooting
That Israeli Molotov attack.
Maybe Luigi Mangione but that was more about hating healthcare companies than politicians/pundits but I guess it's politics adjacent.
There might be others but those are what stand out in my memory.
There doesn't seem to be a throughline here of violence actually begetting more violence, at least not directly of those we know . The only ones I know of explicitly stating any sort of tit for tat violence is the two anti-semitic ones. Even then they tend to be really strange individuals as one would expect tbqh, most people don't do political violence so those who do are strange to begin with. A lot of them seeming to be crazies just looking for fame, conspiracy theorists, informal militias, etc.
Hopefully it means while we have increased baseline of political violence, we won't be spiraling down more and more. Hopefully...
Don't forget about the Pennsylvania governor's mansion getting Molotov-ed.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know all of these for sure, but:
I don't think there was any indication the attacker was a conservative who hated them for being liberal. As I recall, it was more like some sort of dispute between friends or possibly lovers.
You mean the one that was entirely fabricated by FBI informants?
And Luigi Mangione is the only one that deserves an asterisk?
I think this might qualify as the most explicitly political violence yet to happen in this era of political division. Depending on who they turn up as the shooter, presuming that they do eventually.
This was a dirty lie spread by Musk on Twitter. De Pape was delusional due to long-term drug use, but he was sane enough to stand trial, and at all times he continued to maintain that his target had been Nancy Pelosi and he had been trying to kidnap her as part of his delusional far-right political project. His other political activity at the time he did it was mostly watching Qanon and 2020-election-conspiracy material on social media. It looks like he had done an RFK-style left-conspiracy-theorist to right-conspiracy-theorist horseshoe turn at some point between 2014 (when he cancelled his Green Party voter registration) and 2020.
He was not affiliated with any Republican or far-right group, which is why I count him under "the school shooters started shooting politicians" category rather than right-wing political violence.
Okay that sounds like a reasonable take, I missed getting an update on that event sufficiently long after it happened for the truth to actually come out.
Though I might quibble a little about whether it was a "dirty lie", or wild speculation very soon after the event before any actual facts came out, which there tends to be an ample amount of after any high-profile event, including the Kirk assassination.
Wild speculation may be where the claim originated from, but I don't think it's how you wound up under the impression that it was the fact of the matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you should go back and reacquaint yourself of the details of this case because there is ample evidence that he was both a right winger and targeted the Pelosis because they were Democrats.
I appreciate the update on this. @MadMonzer as well who added additional detail here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, that's the case with a lot of attacks really they tend to be more personal or for weird reasons
That wasn't anymore fabricated than a typical sting operation. Maybe you're against police stings in general, but it's common. Happen with drugs, prostitution, money laundering, child pornography honeypots, fake assassination hiring sites etc.
Guy in Kansas once tried to bomb an army base only to realize the bomb was fake.for example https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/kansas-man-sentenced-30-years-plot-explode-car-bomb-fort-riley
Thank god too, that bomb could have killed so many people if he got legitimate material!
Well yeah, it's not a politician or political pundit who was attacked. It was just a random insurance CEO.
Disagree, look at the 60s and 70s. In a short period of time you had JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Evers all killed. And those are just the bigger names.
Attacks on Nixon, George Wallace, Vernon Dahmer. KKK bombings and murders, firebombed buses, Bloody Sunday, Weather Underground, Kent State and that's just a small portion of it.
And the start of serial killing sprees like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and many others (around 300 known active serial killers in the 70s!), and the beginning of violent cults like the Manson family.
By "this era" I did mean after the 60s and 70s era of political unrest. Not sure of an exact date actually, I guess after the relatively domestically peaceful 80s and 90s. Though I suppose you'd then have to overlook the OKC bombing, which is maybe reasonable, since it was more anti-government than anti either political party or tribal side.
I'm not against police stings in general, but there's most definitely a line they have crossed at times where it seems more like they're enabling or encouraging crime that wouldn't otherwise happen instead of thwarting people with serious intent to commit major crimes. I don't know about the case you cited in particular, but they have definitely done this with so-called Islamic terrorists too. In this case they "befriended" some developmentally disabled teenager and eventually cajoled him into sending pitifully small amounts of money to somebody he believed was associated with ISIS, then busted him and patted themselves on the back for "stopping ISIS". Do you think that's an appropriate use of police resources?
Exactly where the line is for this is a bit fuzzy. But I think a good indicator that you're way off on the wrong side of the line is when multiple defendants get acquitted after a successful entrapment defense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also the Israeli Molotov attack was political, but it was basically foreign politics (the attacker was an Egyptian with an expired visa) that just happened to take place on US soil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Modern day COINTELPRO. An FBI scheme.
Come on now. That's not what happened. Poor guy had a blood clot in his brain. He was fine. Feeling good, other than irritation from residual pepper spray and a headache that was getting worse. As confirmed by his text messages to his family. Then dead. Deadly blood clots are not caused by J6.
He died a bit afterwards from an unrelated health issue.
More options
Context Copy link
It’s amazing how people still believe this. A true testament to the power of the media’s propaganda
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link