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 -
It is Okay to Think That Charlie Kirk was not Literally Jesus.
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot in the jugular for expressing controversial political opinions. I actually agreed with many of Charlie Kirk's controversial political opinions. The thing about controversial political opinions though, is that lots of people don't like them. If you are a person who does not like Charlie Kirk's political opinions, here are some things that would be perfectly understandable for you to think or feel upon hearing the news that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed:
"Charlie Kirk once said gun rights are worth the cost of a few shooting deaths. Kinda funny now huh? I wonder if he's changed his mind."
"Sucks he died like that, but I'm kinda glad I don't have to see his tiny face spouting talking points anymore."
"Charlie Kirk was a massive hack. I think we should care about the kids shot at that school in Colorado more than him."
"Charlie Kirk wanted me kicked out of the country because of my political opinions. It's hard for me to feel bad for him."
To be clear, all of these are tasteless and (in my opinion) poorly thought-out, but they are well within the bounds of civil discourse. None of these are beyond the pale. None of these should get one fired from one's unrelated job. None of these are even close to inciting or advocating for violence.
I was shocked today when I saw a Republican Congressman announce a woke-era pressure campaign againt people who "belittled" the assasination. Apparently I have a much longer memory than many people. I still remember 2020. I still remember George Floyd. It wasn't just the riots, it wasn't just the demonization of physical policing tactics, it was the Orwellian psycholigical tyranny of not being able to express nuanced or contrary feelings about a tragic event. Never again. In a free society, people should be able to express their thoughts and feelings on major events, even if they aren't entirely thought-out or sanitized.
Charlie Kirk believed it was part of God's perfect moral law that people who are my friends, my family, my coworkers should be stoned to death. He described Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson (and other black women) as affirmative action hires who stole their spots from white people and who don't have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. This whole attempt to lionize Kirk after his death has been extremely black pulling, as a leftist. Basically none of the articles that try to do so can actually mention things Kirk said or believed because if they did their audience would not think he was worth lionizing! He didn't deserve to get killed for his views but this attempt to pretend Kirk was just the nicest kindest commentator we should all seek to emulate is insane.
Why? Wouldn't you want someone who believes in God's law in stoning people like you to death to make arguments to peacefully convince others through persuasion that this is correct? The most likely alternative to that seems to be using violence to actually enact God's law (something that we know God's followers have historically not been shy about doing). And that tends to be less pleasant - and often more effective, sadly - than argumentation pretty often.
Like, maybe his opinions were evil or beyond the pale or whatever. But he did seem rather nice and kind in how he tried to persuade people of his evil opinions. I think if both people with evil and good opinions decided to emulate his way of being nice and kind while commentating, I think America would be a better, safer place, especially for the types of people that would unfairly suffer if all the people who thought like Kirk decided to eschew scruples around niceness and kindness.
Old Testament law, now we are under the New Testament grace, not law (since Kirk was a Christian, not a Jew). I think the problem has arisen from American Protestants hammering the Old Testament and ignoring the New except for the epistles of St. Paul.
More options
Context Copy link
Because he was not a very nice person? He was very often a rude asshole. Please, watch this clip and tell me Kirk in it could be described as "kind" and "nice."
No I would prefer they shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
I don't know. I get the sense that if Kirk personally tried to enact God's law the most likely outcome is he would be dead or in prison from the attempt. That could be better than convincing a large number of people that gay people should be stoned to death for being gay.
I defy you to watch the clip above and tell me that Kirk is "nice" and "kind" in it.
Good luck with your totalitarian utopia.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not an option in a diverse liberal democracy, though. The choice is just between how someone with evil ideas like his pushes them forward.
The problem isn't Kirk, it's the millions of people who think like Kirk who don't see a peaceful democratic way to coordinate to make their voices heard. This is a harm in itself, but also a risk of major second-order harms that are tough to predict and prevent.
Not particularly nice or kind, I agree. But it's about as nice a way as I've seen someone deliver the message that these people are incompetent affirmative action hires who don't deserve the roles they got, which they did due to their race. Yeah, it's mocking and mean, and he could've been nicer, I suppose, but it's hard to be nicer than that when trying to make a point like that, which is an important point that ought to be made and publicized by people who truly believe it. But by the standards of political commentary about people in the opposite side, he looks basically like the nicest and kindest person on Earth.
So maybe it's more accurate to say that the world would be more peaceful and better to live in if people decided to try to emulate being "less un-nice and less un-kind" like Kirk. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king and all that.
More options
Context Copy link
Just for calibration, If that's "rude asshole", what do you call people cheering on his death?
They are also often assholes about it.
Just "assholes"? On my scale, if they're "assholes" then that automatically elevates Kirk to "kind" and "nice".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did he? I get the general impetus to not speak ill of the dead, but unless he'd taken a turn very recently that I'm not aware of, Kirk was not doing good-faith outreach. He was generating content.
Tell me the difference.
He had his opinions, he went to places, and he tried to convince others. He didnt insult his questioners, he didnt maliciously stick fingers in their eyes. Yes, he had a motive and an agenda; a preferred outcome from his activities. No, you werent ever going to change the opinions of this debate bro in real time. His back and forths were in service to advocacy.
But outside of some very insular and high-minded communities... this is as good as it gets. This is what every political and public advocate does. It has always been the case whether this was a Uni gig or a Monk debate.
The accusation that Charlie didnt operate in 'good faith' - in the same way I might with a good friend when discussing contrary politics - seems true in a very narrow sense. But if it doesnt count, almost nothing does.
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't seen much of his videos, but from the clips I saw, he seemed unusually nice and kind in how he made his arguments shutting down arguments he considered wrong or even absurd.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would I want the enemy to coordinate violence against me rather than perform uncoordinated violence (and, assuming that people aren't yet persuaded of his point of view, get shut down)?
Uncoordinated violence is random, hard to predict, and hard to prevent. After all, there's a reason why there was so much scaremongering about "stochastic terrorism" over the past half-decade or so (and just "terrorism" in the couple decades before). Coordinated violence, of the kind that involves peacefully lobbying voters and politicians in a democratic republic, is more predictable, more legible, which also makes it more preventable. Certainly when it comes to some crazy explicitly religious doctrine in the USA.
I mean, this is sort of what makes liberal democracy better than the alternatives. That it pushes people to openly coordinate violence against each other based on arguments and persuasion rather than enacting violence against each other based on metal and blood. Because, of course, all politics is about coordinating violence against each other.
Yes, I would sooner prefer my enemies be suppressed from coordinating so that only a small, least inhibited fraction lashes out with random violence. I know it because my side is suppressed in such a way in my country and I would prefer the opposite.
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