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 -
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.
Regarding the stoning thing. There was a kerfuffle where Steven King tweeted that allegation and then very quickly apologized.
His tweet where he stated that Kirk “advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin.’” got at least 25 million views before being deleted.
His later apology: “I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.” has 2.5 million right now.
His followup tweet that "I have apologized. Charlie Kirk never advocated stoning gays to death." Has 1.6 million.
Those are quite impressive numbers for an apology. But they're still an order of magnitude lower than the engagement numbers on the accusation.
Perhaps your second criticism is warranted. I genuinely don't know, I don't care to check. But your first is apparently not, at least according to King. (I'm being a bit hypocritical here in not looking up the original videos or articles myself.) We should all keep in mind that social media rumormongering selects for discord, not truth.
He described the section of Leviticus 18 that calls for stoning men who have sex with men to death as part of "God's perfect law." Is Kirk not a Christian? Does he not believe in God's law? Does Kirk also only quote scripture hypocritically when it serves his ends?
Do you think that all observant Christians and Jews in the world (the latter, unlike Christians, I remind you, think the entire Law of Moses remains binding) believe in going out and stoning homosexuals right now, and are therefore terrible people?
What do you mean by "observant"? I suspect lots of people who conceive of themselves as observant pick and choose what part of their holy book they endorse. Does that make them not "observant"? In Kirk's case specifically, he is the one who brought up not believing in stoning gay people as an example of hypocrisy.
For the purposes of this argument, let's define observant as being, at minimum, people who believe the Old Testament is the revealed word of God, and that God, being perfect, has not made mistakes. Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered? And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
Yea. I think if you believe it is a moral imperative to stone gay people to death you are a bad person.
I am sure there are practical reasons (they will go to jail) they don't want to.
So then you believe that, in round terms, 100% of Christians and Jews (and Europeans more generally) who lived before the 1860s, when buggery started being bumped down from being a capital crime, were bad people, and none of the deaths of anyone who fought in any European war, or was murdered in Christendom before then, was sad?
Sure. People in the past often had pretty values, I think. I reserve judgement about whether any of their deaths was "sad" but I think lionizing them as moral paragons would be bad.
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