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 -
When Charlie Kirk was on the up and up along with other figures like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes riding the new political wave Trump ushered in, I can remember the presence of numerous conservatives who hated him for his gatekeeping of the mainstream within the new conservative movement. I'm not just talking about the Nick Fuentes faction either. Kirk attacked quite a few conservatives because they didn't fall in line by upholding the status quo of the mainline punditry and conservative mainstream. And that was a cheap and quick path to be catapulted into riches and be put in front of cameras. Nothing Charlie Kirk did was unique in the larger view of his activities. Fuentes is presently mourning over the loss, but the response I'm being hit with tells me even more right-wingers hated Charlie Kirk than his actual opposition does. There's quite a bit of celebrating here on my back end of things.
I think this is underestimating his influence. In the aftermath of the shooting I could not find the actual articles and videos, but I watched some discussion of Democrat operatives who were actually praising how Charlie Kirk was actually an exceptionally shrewd operator for Republicans, especially in the space of young men the Democrats are now talking about in the aftermath of the last presidential election - and I am talking about day-to-day operations, how his activities actually translated into voter registrations or organizational movement toward concrete political action.
He was apparently more than just some right-wing talking head or influencer with clips and gotchas on social media. He was able to organize, lead and move things on the ground politically - he literally cofounded Turning Point USA in 2012 and worked in the same way since then. Think of him as a combination of let's say Andrew Wilson or Ben Shapiro with their debate skills, combined with organizer like Scott Presler. I think he was a prototype of the new type of politician, which is rather rare. Not all internet influencers can translate their audience into mainstream success. It is a shame that he is dead, he really had a bright career ahead of him.
This all goes to the point I was making earlier. This is why I said he was good for the right-wing establishment, but was bad for philosophical conservatism. I'm sure he was effective when it came to mobilizing resources and support for the establishment cause, which is why the money began to flow in for him. It was all but guaranteed to happen if you're someone who says to the media establishment and major political power brokers that you'll uphold their cause and talking points if given their backing.
This is why I consider people like like Charlie Kirk a stooge more than some kind of deep thinker, because he wasn't intellectually sophisticated at all. I forget what the occasion was and can't find the video presently, but I remember one of Nick Fuentes fan's heckling him during a speech Q&A where he's droning on about the Bush tax cuts, and the guy practically rolls his eyes and says to the rest of the audience, "okay, does anyone here care one damn bit about the 'Bush tax cuts'?" This is what most people I knew thought of Charlie Kirk. What people wanted at the time he first appeared on the scene was the entire political framework of assumptions thrown out. Fuentes wanted a new set of assumptions, I'm not sure what Owens wanted, but several people no longer wanted to hear the same tired diatribe on repeat, because Trump himself in 2016 threw the whole political playbook completely out the window and a new generation of activists saw it as their opportunity to make change. People like Charlie Kirk were quick to prevent that change from happening by bolting down the same frame of arguments to stop the challenge to American political orthodoxy. This is why he was bad for philosophical conservatism. Not emblematic of a deep thinker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can confirm, I never liked the guy, his whole shtick was delivering mild takes and being some one who could soak up the random normies so they don't discover anything more real. I'm really wonder why would anyone want to shoot him specifically, was it a glowie op to escalate tensions? Was it some deranged TDS leftoid who thinks a milquetoast nobody like Charlie Kirk is a real threat. I don't know. It's going to be interesting to see if the shooter has a manifesto.
A lot of people on the right didn't like him, but the only group on the right I know who really hated him were the groypers. Were there more?
The TRS/1488 crowd? Particularly the ones who are currently blaming this on Da Joos, like this specimen on Twitter:
Signals need to be somewhat unambiguous to be effective though. That’s why Putin conducts his assassinations with Russian-government-accessible-only poisons.
Agreed. I didn't say it was a good argument, just that this is another sort of person on the right who disliked Kirk.
Of course, just thinking aloud.
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
A “trantifa” posted this the day before. Might be the shooter
/images/17575931064610343.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link