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 -
As always, disgusting. As always, it's going to backfire on whatever political positions the perpetrator holds. Dems are either going to have to moderate and cut off crazy fringe to avoid alienating the majority, or they'll just lose. Either way, whatever causes the shooter believed in are worse off for it. Abject stupidity and waste of life.
They will not moderate, they will double down. Their base demands it. All bluesky is now alight in celebration of the murder. There are a lot of reports and posts in public of people celebrating, many more just do it privately. And I am not so convinced they will lose. Madmani seems to be doing pretty well, despite his open support of political violence and his absolutely nutty plans of building New-York SSR. I don't think we have revulsion to political violence as a common value anymore.
I doubt /all/ of them are. I have seen many calls for lowering temperatures, denouncing it, etc. meanwhile I have seen several highly popular right wing facebook groups that seem positively giddy that this might give them some excuse to kill leftists.
It is clear that your purpose in making that statement is political rather than factual.
I just went on Bluesky with a fresh new account and searched for Kirk and sorted by top and scrolled by around 30 posts before I found one saying the death of Charlie Kirk was wrong and it was still accompanied by "And Charlie Kirk was a horrible, hateful man who spent his life radicalizing young people to embrace their worst demons by targeting women, people of color, immigrants, and the marginalized."
Gavin Newsom did create a series of post trying to lower temperature and denouncing it. The top reply is calling this sympathy stupid because Gavin Newsome had something nice to say about Charlie Kirk. Most of the top replies are talking trash about Charlie Kirk.
We should expect politicians to denounce political violence, as they have skin in the game. The lack of top posts from non politicians showing any sympathy is pretty telling. I scrolled around 100 posts and found 4 sympathetic messages from top democrat leaders/politicians, 2 from people I don't know stating celebrating his death is wrong, like 7-8 news articles and the rest is a mix of gleeful, critical, or who cares messaging. " 80-90% of the top 100 posts celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is about as close to all as you can in how the word "all" is used colloquially. Although yes I guess jarjarjedi could've been more precise in his speech I don't think it's far off from the truth.
Interesting. I don't doubt you but I don't use blue sky. My reddit feed is not filled with anything I'd call celebrating. Many sarcastic "thoughts and prayers", and many pointing out supposed ironies about his stance on gun control, lots of " this is a bad for the country".
I don't either, which is why I took a few minutes to check, and I'm sure if I dig deep enough I can find more people on bluesky who at least has the ability to acknowledge this is not something to be celebrated. I think this just means your feed consists of Subreddits with higher quality users, which I would not be surprised for someone who has come to the motte.
Yeah I clicked over to the "popular" feed on reddit, but, same thing? Maybe I am in a weird filter bubble
I have heard that reddit admins were rapidly purging anything celebrating his death from the site. There were apparently entire popular posts from /r/politics that were removed.
I don't think they'd be dumb to be concerned that this will kick off congressional hearings and summon them personally to testify under oath about the practices of their site. Not saying that it will or that they deserve it, but if it the killer was, say, a site moderator (low, but nonzero chance) or frequent poster, it seems possible.
Not to mention that corporate leadership are public-ish figures (see Brian Thompson), so it makes sense to cool it for self-preservation a bit too.
And also a third possibility, which I'll assume charitably is the most relevant: that they see the killing of political speakers as abhorrent.
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