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.
Could I get a source for the first claim where Kirk believes that it is God's perfect moral law that (I'm assuming gay people) should be stoned to death?
For the second, here is the best source I could find. The source is listed as The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023, but it's surprisingly difficult to find the actual unclipped source even with this information. The earliest episodes I can find are for November 11, 2023: https://salemnewschannel.com/host/charlie-kirk/full-episodes?page=37
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496
Transcript:
Additional context of the clip
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action in higher education. After this decision, many high profile black women came out to speak about how affirmative action impacted their lives. The four women Kirk mentioned wasn't because soley they were black, but because they came in support of affirmative action, or outright stated they benefited from affirmative action.
Joy Reid https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/joy-reid-affirmative-action-harvard-supreme-court-rcna92190
Shiela Jackson Lee - it's in the video
Michelle Obama https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/michelle-obama-affirmative-action-00104211
Ketanji Brown Jackson She has the least obvious self claimed benefit about affirmative action that I could find, but she did defend it in her dissent: https://thehill.com/homenews/4073556-read-jackson-dissent-supreme-court-affirmative-action/
She was also appointed after Biden vowed to nominate a black women, which I think is some evidence enough that affirmative action played a role in her getting to where she was https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiring-us-justice-breyer-appear-with-biden-white-house-2022-01-27/
Yes, Kirk did say are affirmative action hires, that they stole a white person's spot, and that they don't have the brain power to be taken seriously. That does come off as quite rude and mean spirited. But it was in response to the black women admitting they got to their positions due to affirmative action. It's not like he just randomly named the first four black women he could solely for the purpose of insulting them. Did they or did they not benefit from affirmative action? If not for affirmative action, would they be where they are today? Had it not been for affirmative action, would someone else, possibly white, be in their position instead?
9/10 times I see someone quote something bad Charlie Kirk said, it's all made in assumption that you would agree that these things are bad with zero to no effort to actually address the argument he is making. It's all "look at this mean thing Kirk said" with no effort to explain why it's bad or wrong. And each time I have looked in context of the quote, I come away thinking that it wasn't as bad as people that want to "reveal" his true character make it out to be.
Ultimately, that claims boils down to Kirk said mean things about public figures based on a response from said public figures. You could say my summary is too charitable, I will respond that the other summary is too uncharitable, so one should look at the quote in context and make the decision for themselves how bad what Kirk said really is.
Clip for the gay thing (I slightly misquoted) along with some additional context in this comment.
Yea I guess these public figures talking about how affirmative action helped them really forced Kirk into describing them as "not hav[ing] the brain power to be taken seriously." How could he have done anything else!
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link