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 -
If you think it was wrong to kill Kirk for his speech (as I do) then that's fine. If you want to go on to talk about what a great commentator he was and how kind and gentle and worthy of emulation he is, maybe you should quote some of the things he actually said.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. If you actually thought it was wrong, you wouldn't be all over here justifying it and throwing shit on the dead. You think it was right, or you're relived it happened, and you're upset that other people are upset.
This is similar to what I saw in other from the Trump assassination attempt: an overwhelming disappointment that he missed, then retroactive justification about how that reaction doesn't invalidate everything else you believe about yourself.
Can you point me to where I justify him being shot? I think Kirk was a shitty person who doesn't deserve to be posthumously lionized and I have made no secret of that. That doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I see it, I believe it was wrong to kill Kirk for his speech, because I believe that such actions in general are wrong and ought to be prevented (using minimal necessary force, etc.). One method I see as helping is to set the precedent that if you kill someone like Kirk, then all your allies will team up with Kirk's friends and make sure he becomes remembered as a hero (and ideally you won't be remembered at all, or at best as a nobody loser), no matter what the murdered person was like before. This won't stop the truly psychotic and deranged, but it should reduce the incentive for political enemies to murder opposing pundits. I wrote out more in this comment yesterday about my thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
You've never been to a funeral before have you?
I have.
So then you should be aware of the social norm of not speaking ill of the dead, even flattering them, when you eulogize them. So you can't even plead ignorance, you just don't think your political enemies that have been murdered deserve even that common decency.
Most people will learn most of what they know about him immediately after he died. A period of not speaking ill of the dead is unduly biased towards his supporters.
If you're literally at his funeral then it's fair to stop people from dancing on his grave. Not in the world wide web.
I think that's a fair social norm to punish his murderer, tho, and discourage future such actions. "If you kill someone, we as a society will only talk about how great he was, and for a time deliberately look past all the things you thought were bad."
More options
Context Copy link
Well, where by "his supporters," you mean "supporters of free speech and dialogue as a way to solve political differences that's preferable to violence," sure. People who support such things have a huge, legitimate reason to want Kirk to be lionized, in a way that's entirely orthogonal to their support of his non-meta political opinions, because it sets the precedent that political assassination is politically beneficial to the assassinated. Now, it's possible that the increase in incentive to murder someone on your own side via false flag is greater than the decrease in incentive to murder someone on the other side, but I'm skeptical of this notion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it a dumb norm generally. One that does a lot of harm and we should do away with. This is not specific to my political enemies. Do you think we should avoid speaking ill of, even flattering, Jeffrey Epstein? Joseph Stalin? Mao Zedong? They are all dead!
So we're right back to comparing Charlie Kirk to history's greatest monsters to justify how he's being treated?
Yeah, this isn't getting de-escalated.
More options
Context Copy link
You say it's generally a dumb norm, but to prove it you parade around some of the worst men who have ever lived? Sounds more like special pleading.
What if we replace them with unlikeable, but relatively average people? Should I avoid speaking ill of Destiny, Ethan Klein, or Hassan Piker, if they die? I think so.
I don't. If you think they were shitty and did shitty things you should feel free to say so.
There's a reason why you didn't use average people as examples originally, and it's because you know it would make your argument unconvicing.
Incredible mind reading powers you have. I chose the examples I did because they illustrate there are cases where ~everyone agrees there are dead that it is fine to speak ill of.
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