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 -
Since other people have already commented on the gay thing, I don't have much to add, but criticism of Charlie Kirk being a hypocrite is very different from claiming he wants gay people to be stoned to death.
Ok, but I don't think Kirk was a hypocrite. Do you think he understood himself, in that clip, to be saying something like "Ms. Rachel agrees with Leviticus 19 but not Leviticus 18... and so do I!" That he was a hypocrite about the bible in the same way he was criticizing? I rather think he believed it was a criticism that would not apply to himself, which entails taking scripture more seriously, and in this specific case agreeing with the part of scripture he brought up as an example.
That's a maximally uncharitable take. I find the interpretation that Kirk is criticizing the selective usage of bible verses to be more plausible. I don't think Kirk believed gays should be stoned to death.
Why do I think Kirk doesn't believe gays should be stoned to death?
Quoting the bible often comes with interpretation of what said bible verse means, especially Old Testament bible verses. His quote is preceded by him talking about "telling them the truth".
Kirk has previously said "Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone,". https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966484038648021264
Kirk has platformed gay people.
Kirk doesn't make a call to action to stone gay people.
Kirk hasn't stoned any gay people.
Also, is there a source that shows what he says after where it's cut off? In all the previous quotes I looked at, there was stuff said afterward that clarifies or provides more information. Why is the clip cut off where it is? The best sourcing is to provide the full video and when no such source is given one should be suspicious of any editing and cutting that is done. Something tells me he probably said something along the lines of and no I don't actually believe you should stone people to death.
EDIT: I don't think anyone advocating for the stoning of gay people would say this: https://instagram.com/reel/DOmADH6EqoL/
Kirk recognized the political expediencies necessary to have the reach he does. No one doubted he was a savvy operator.
So on one hand we have all these examples the guy above you posted, and on the other hand we have you, your selective interpretation of one statement, and your totally arbitrary claim that everything he ever said otherwise was actually some kind of ruse.
...okay.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are out here repeating the same vile villainizing that got this man shot two days ago, and you are repeating it without shame or hesitation.
Incredibly damning that quoting Kirk's words or showing clips of him speaking is "villainizing" him.
Are you honestly not familiar with how clipping is used to take what people say out of context to villainize them?
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