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'm gonna admit, I'm feeling some simmering rage.
Years, YEARS of being told that right-wing violence vastly outstripped the amount of left-wing violence. Which was even technically correct if you consider prison gang murders to be ideologically motivated. Which is to say, a perfect motte and bailey. "Right wingers are more violent [in prison], therefore we should crack down on right wingers [outside of prison] because they're more of a threat."
But in real life, especially the past few years, the majority of the stories I actually find is lefties shooting politicians, threatening politicians, engaging in riots, or some rando popping a CEO (I admit that MAY not have been ideologically motivated). Oh, yeah, that recent attack on ICE Agents that many have already probably forgotten. Sometimes the lefties self-immolate instead, which is something you almost never catch righties doing.
J6 was indeed an example of right-wing 'violence' but of course only one person died in that event. Who was in fact a rightie.
I'm old enough to remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
So Trump gets shot... and has multiple other attempts on his life. Lefties more or less OPENLY suggest that it'd be morally good to kill him and his associates. Punch Nazis. Where "Nazi" is anybody who believes what the median voter did circa 2007.
And then Charlie Kirk, whose WHOLE FUCKING SHTICK is that he tries to win debates and spread ideas rather than push for fighting, gets popped by what will probably end up being another lefty type. I'm prepared to be wrong on that, but I'll take bets with any comers at this point.
And all of that might not piss me off, if it weren't for lefty media running constant cover, tacitly agreeing that the violence was justifiable and refusing to actually lower the temperature surrounding these events.
I'm tired. But not in the "won't it all stop" sense. More in the "when do we actually fight back and do something about it" sense.
For the time being, stay strapped.
EDIT: oh, I forgot, someone took a run at Nicholas Fuentes, too. I don't even like that dude but its exactly more of my point. Lefty commentators are not in the crosshairs.
I have to admit, I feel simmering rage whenever I see right-wingers completely memoryhole every instance of right-wing violence to build a one-sided persecution narrative meant to justify more right-wing violence. Oh, you're old enough to remember Scalise getting shot? Are you old enough to remember two fucking months ago? Or three years ago? Or or or.
Oh, wait, I forgot. When a right-winger does it, it was actually a mental health issue. At this point, I'm genuinely convinced there's a subset of American right-wingers that is dug so far into their siege mentality that they're incapable of grasping this. They crouch in the corner, fantasizing about violence until one of them does something, at which point they act shocked for ten seconds before flushing the whole thing down a mental toilet. The ability to flip between gleeful viciousness and 'have you no decency' pearl-clutching is incredible. Not a shred of self-awareness, just an impenetrable conviction that they are innocent victims.
I thought the Minnesota guys' politics/general motivations turned out to be pretty weird and unclear?
That's exactly what the wikipedia article says. But Boelter tracks to right wing and has said he was right wing 20 years ago.
It just reads, to me, like Skibboleth giving up and getting mired in the same guesswork where everything is made up and the points don't matter that he's decrying which undermines the point just a bit.
How, specifically?
I followed this at the time, and my prediction was that it didn't look like a crazy person (obvious premeditation, use of tactics, use of a mask, etc), and seemed more likely to be a right-winger than a left-winger, given the available evidence. But then more evidence came out, and what it showed was that this guy had been fairly apolitical but mental-health-wise marginal, and that recently he had gone cuckoo-bananas based on his public pronouncements, in a way that did not map to the red-blue split.
I was, from the start, prepared to believe that he was motivated by right-wing ideology, and I maintain that the prior for any murder of politicians should be that the act is political. But in this case, he genuinely seemed to believe that (IIRC) he'd figured out how to end world hunger by outlawing food waste at the federal level, and thought the politicians who weren't listening to him were on the side of Big Hunger. That is not right-wing ideology. That is actual craziness.
from the wiki:
He's also a white guy that was wearing a cowboy hat in CCTV footage.
These all track right wing to me. There's a ton of confounders to this, yeah, which is why even his affiliation was muddy. But in situations like these affiliation is being used as an assumed motivation most of the time. I don't think that's true but I was just trying to meet Skibboleth halfway to try to maintain decorum since the post was mostly just pure seething.
All of those are indeed weak evidence that he was Red-aligned, which was why at the time I bet he was actually Red-aligned. But then I actually read what he'd been writing and posting shortly before the attack, and what some of his colleagues reported of his actions, and that gave much, much stronger evidence that he was in fact just insane.
They caught him alive, IIRC, they have all his devices and all his possessions. If someone can point to any actual evidence that his attacks were motivated by anything resembling red-tribe political ideology, I will be happy to count him as a Red-aligned ideological killer.
You tell me how this sounds like a Red Tribe grievance.
@Skibboleth is flaming out because he is a die-hard partisan whose goal is to pretend to be reasonable, and his side is having a very bad week. We actually discussed the Waltz shooting at some length at the time, including considerable speculation about motives. The shooting happened in the middle of the night and IIRC by the next afternoon they caught the guy and had established that he was legitimately crazy, so the conversation died out. The arguments he is presenting above are specious, but he puffs up big, neglects the detail and shouts in outrage, so mostly people don't notice.
What we are seeing now is legitimately way, way worse than the Minnesota shootings. We have video of people in the crowd jumping and screaming for joy within seconds of the bullet's impact. the entire left-wing internet is either openly celebrating his murder or feigning smug disinterest.
Didn't you just say that your side will not accept a crazy guy with a gun explanation?
Why are your enemies required to be so much more rational and forgiving than you are?
This is A) not true, and B) "murder and suspected jaywalking".
I think at this point the issue is more the general response to the shooting than a question of who actually pulled the trigger. A pile of tweets with half a million likes is sufficiently indicative of the death of civil norms
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
More options
Context Copy link