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.
This is a fascinating normative statement, and one I'd love to support.
As soon as we turn from 'should' to 'does', though, the answer changes radically. Mike Adams was forced into early retirement (and driven to suicide) over his personal writings in 2020. Damore doesn't have his old job at Google back, and the punchline to his whole NLRB thing was Google arguing (and the board accepting) that the law required them to fire employees for speech. People were fired for anonymous donations to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund. Nor does it stop at firing: Kyle Kashuv and Harvard, LexManos and Forge, Vaxry and Hypr, Mercedes Lackey and the convention circuit, yada yada.
There was a big important court case about whether the federal government can pressure private companies to ban and censor specific users, and SCOTUS said fine by us. [context]
Never again would be a wonderful philosophy. It also demands that it stop happening the first time. I would love to see that change. But I notice that it is only when progressives are getting fired that any progressive cares about freeze peach, even the ones that proclaim they were 'always' the principled ones.
I would love to have arguments against this strategy; I don't.
I'm torn when it comes to this discussion.
Take employers for instance. And take a look at this story I remember seeing years ago where a female mechanic was fired for her activity on an OnlyFan's account she had. Do employers not have a right to decide what kind of activities they want their business to be associated with? It's the same logic behind why a Catholic school can fire a gay teacher for their sexual orientation, despite having laws against discrimination. Each case has a unique set of circumstances attached to it I recognize, but this logic works both ways.
Gay people essentially made the argument for a long time that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of their business. That's fine by me. And it was for most people, even before gay marriage was legalized. Nobody 'could've' stopped two consenting adults doing what they wanted behind closed doors anyway because it if was just between them, how would anybody even know about it? That argument would've had the same purchase a century ago as it did in recent years at the time it was made. So then what's the impetus for legalizing gay marriage then in that case? Was that simply an argument to get their foot in the door to advance a further expansion of privileges and rights? If it ended at two consenting adults, why the activism? Surely there shouldn't have been any. It's a private matter between consenting adults. Why is it in my face? Why is my Church prejudiced if it doesn't hang an LGBTQ flag outside it's doors? Seems like it was never about that in the first place.
Gay marriage, specifically, was about equal rights -- gay couples wanted to be able to, say, hold hands in the street without getting beaten up. Or visit each other in the hospital. Or file taxes jointly. Etc.
The whole point of gay rights was that they didn't want to have to keep in behind closed doors, the same way straight couples don't have to keep it behind closed doors.
They didn't want to have to keep a large chunk of their lives secret.
Pressuring churches to fly rainbow flags isn't really the same thing and I largely agree is overreach. On the other hand, a lot of chuches fly rainbow flags because their congragants actually think that gay rights are good, and that's their right as well.
No gays we ever knew growing up were getting beat up in the street for holding hands or were prevented from seeing each other in the hospital that we ever were aware of. Nor do I ever remember hearing anything like that until gay activism started becoming a thing. The former, nobody in our community (including our churches) had a problem with them. The latter was when everybody started having a problem with them.
Jointly filing taxes? Sure, you got me there. But at no point were any of these ever the kind of arguments I remember gay people leading with as I indicated above. They wanted to be allowed to peacefully live with their partners and engage in their own private activities without being persecuted for it. Many of them had that before gay marriage was a thing. Yes, I get that prejudiced people still exist. The point I'm getting at is we never saw any of that until gay activism started becoming a thing. And this is mostly the same with the trans community today; though that one I can remember there being prejudice against them growing up.
If you're someone who brings your partner along with you to our social gathering, everybody knew and nobody cared. You were still just like us. If you're someone who's all up in my face, calling me a bigot because I don't find your friend sexually attractive, you can get out of here with that nonsense.
Their right to free expression doesn't entitle them to a right to an audience. When you're acting out sex acts on the footsteps of my church while I'm trying to take my niece to Mass, don't call the police when one of the attendees forcibly throws you off the property.
Re: violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBTQ_people_in_the_United_States (see incidents section)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Scare
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/alan-turing-the-medical-abuse-of-gay-men/
Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. While straight-up murder was not super common, being cancelled for the crime of existing-while-gay was quite common. Or, in Turing's case, being sentenced by the state to chemical castration.
Just because you didn't see the supression (and why would you?) doesn't mean it wasn't there. If you do any basic research instead of relying on remembered vibes from 50 years ago, it's very well documented.
The hospitals thing isn't gay-exclusive, it's basic HIPPA -- if someone is incapacitated in a hospital, if someone with no paper-trail relationship with them wants to visit them, they can't by default. They particulalry can't if the person's relatives don't want them to, and since gay relationships were either secret (relatives wouldn't know who this person is) or were unapproved by relatives... there were a lot of (fully adult, btw) instances of spouses dying alone. Marriage adds the spouse to the list of allowed visitors by default. Less glamerous, but very important.
These links all describe incidents at the start of the 1950s. What people get annoyed about is pointing to genuinely nasty things that happened to some number of gay people in the 50s to justify giving them complete cultural dominance* in the 2000s and 2010s.
*Until they were superseded by trans in the late 2010s.
You said "Nor do I ever remember hearing anything like that until gay activism started becoming a thing". The 1950s ones are the incidents that happened before gay activism started becoming a thing.
The 1950 to 1970s incidents are why gay activism started becoming a thing.
The wikipedia page has incidents up through 2025, which you would know if you had taken a look at it?
The above wasn’t me that you replied to. I wasn’t born in the 1950’s or 60’s (or 70’s) either. I also never said gay people never experienced any prejudice or persecution, in fact I made sure I stated as much.
Let me ask you this. LGBTQ activism may have achieved substantial political equality for gay people, but do you think the activism on par helped or harmed their social reputation in the eyes of the average person, the more aggressive it became?
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