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 don't know the guy or any of his beliefs, and there's a lot of this sort of "he was a violent transphobe" etc. rhetoric online. So can you direct me to where he said that (like the quotes about gun deaths and the 2nd amendment rights) or is it just "well he was a Christian, therefore he believed in the Bible, therefore he accepted what the Bible says about X/Y/Z, therefore he wanted me stoned to death" chain of inference?
EDIT: I ask this because I remember the fighting over gay rights where people on all sides were quoting Leviticus, and it was considered a killer put-down to ask those against gay rights "so do you wear poly-cotton mix clothing? do you eat shrimp? because those are banned too, you know!" and to say 'if you don't keep all the laws and taboos, you are being a hypocrite and don't have religious objections'.
However, those on the liberal side (generally liberal Christians) also liked to quote, in the context of illegal immigrants, the parts about "Do not ill-treat foreigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you would a fellow-Israelite, and love them as you love yourselves. Remember that you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God", except you know - that's in the same list as the mixed materials and anti-witchcraft, so are they stoning witches to death? no? then they're hypocrites and not acting out of religious belief!
People cherrypick parts of Scripture all the time; it would be entirely possible for Kirk to be anti-gay marriage but not want gays stoned to death.
Here is the clip where describes the section of Leviticus 18 about stoning men who have sex with men to death as part of "God's perfect law".
Here is the clip where he makes the comments about Ketanji Brown Jackson and others.
Edit for your edit:
The broader context in the clip above is that Kirk is criticizing Ms. Rachel for selectively quoting parts of Leviticus that she likes and ignoring the parts she doesn't. With the implication this makes her faith or invocation less sincere or authentic. That she is a hypocrite. For this to function as a contrast it would have to be the case that Kirk does not do the same thing, otherwise what is the point? Ms. Rachel selectively quotes scripture, just like me! So Kirk must either be consistent about believing the commands in Leviticus, presumably including the one he brings up, or his point in bringing it up is incoherent because it applies just as much to himself.
Okay, thank you for the link.
More options
Context Copy link
Here is the full episode that the clip about stoning is taken from. The clip starts around 1:02:00. He continues:
The New Testament revised how sinners ought to be treated (stoning them to death is definitively "un-Christlike"), but did not generally override the list of behaviors considered to be sinful; and Leviticus attests that gay sex is a sin. If you grew up anywhere in the West and not under a rock, you have understood this argument since you were a child. It's not hard to find videos where Kirk expounds on this very basic principle:
In another comment you called him "savvy", implying that he's dogwhistling to an audience who will understand that what he's really saying is they should go out and stone a gay. Well, it would have to be a very high-pitched whistle indeed to pierce through the background noise of the millions of Christians who have taken the same line for centuries in all sincerity – not to mention all the other times he himself modeled or advocated a firm but gentle stance towards gays and other gender non-conformists.
As for the affirmative action comments – OK, yes, he made a snide remark pointing out the obvious corollary of benefiting from affirmative action. But come on. You do realize this is the best that hordes of disgruntled leftists have been able to dig up, right? He was more civil than most commentators of similar stature, left or right. I was never a fan of his, but watching some of his videos now, it's striking how strong his commitment to politeness was – as far as I've seen, he never raised his voice or cursed at his interlocutor; he was content merely to let the fools he debated make fools of themselves, without piling on ridicule; he would consistently chide the crowd when they were heckling or otherwise being less than fully accommodating to his opponents; and his final appeal was often to love and never to its opposite. I'm no Christian myself, but these are exactly the sorts of qualities I've always admired about Christians, and he was pretty much a sterling example.
(The way he marketed himself – "handing out L's" – doesn't quite align with that, but my rejoinder is again simply: come on. He wasn't literally an angel, but by the standards of argumentative political content targeted at his audience's age and IQ bracket, he merits a place in one of the higher celestial spheres.)
More options
Context Copy link
This really reads as a tongue in cheek gotcha, he can't stop smirking as he makes the argument. I don't think he takes the scripture literally, he immediately explains his personal interpretation of the 'love your neighbor' bit, and I think he is also explaining his interpretation of the myriad 'stone the gays' bits in the bible in the same moment.
I would imagine that his position, which he half states in the clip, is that homosexuality is a sin and as a good and loving Christian he has an obligation to help gay people understand that truth rather then just affirming their identity.
This is just based on the clip. I have seen very little Charlie Kirk content so he might in other places make claims that undermine this reading.
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to see a full clip of the first, not conveniently cut before he finishes speaking. The context of the argument appears to be that he is pushing back against the tiktoker for saying that every word of Leviticus must be taken completely literally. He's clearly using it as a gotcha against her quoting Leviticus - he opened the argument with "I mean, Satan's quoted scripture." For the second, he is saying that appointing unqualified and incompetent candidates because of diversity commitments implies that black women are not capable of doing the job, that this is the argument that progressives are implicitly making when they appoint a KBJ to the Supreme Court because Biden committed to picking a black woman.
Something you will find if you spend time on themotte is that it's a good idea to check the sources people show you for their claims and think critically about them.
More options
Context Copy link
what is wrong with what he said in the clip?
Isn't that the justice that doesn't know what a woman is? if I remember correctly she said she couldn't say because she wasn't a biologist, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link