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 -
There's a video where he confirms that the quote is true. He says that they talk about why the Civil Rights Act was a mistake once a week. He also confirms that he thinks MLK is a bad guy, which is also a radical view - the latest polling I could find indicates that 81% of Americans think that MLK had a positive impact on the country, with polling division indicating that at least some of the other respondents (for some reason Pew doesn't indicate how many of the others answer in the negative and how many say they don't know) would be black people who think that MLK wasn't radical enough.
If the meaning was as you speculate, why would he call that a very, very radical view?
Because from Elementary School on kids are indoctrinated into treating MLK Jr. as an American saint who saved us from our sins of racism. We study his pastoral letters and speeches while teachers coo about how enlightened he was. Even saying, "he was a good man, but not perfect," would be radical. And he wasn't perfect. He plagiarized his PHD dissertation and a lot of his speeches. He cheated on his wife with multiple women, one of whom he struck. He still likely had a positive impact on the country, because most of these pecadillos were not widely known during his life or even today. But if more people knew these details about him, I don't think it would become a very radical thing to say that MLK Jr. was not a good man.
Thank you for turning up more than I could, but I wish I could watch a video where he actually goes into what his beef is with the Civil Rights Act so I don't have to strongman him myself.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a pretty silly way of trying to paint him as a radical. Comparing a summary of his position to answers on a poll is a terrible measure of disagreement, and "I disagree" and "this is too radical" are two completely different things.
They are at least material against the claim that Kirk can be best described as a "moderate conservative squish".
The only part of that statement I'd disagree with is "squish".
Anyway, what is even the point you're trying to make here? When people are talking about his views they're trying to say that he wasn't saying any crazy extremist "fighting words" shit, and that he was trying to persuade his opponents by means of civil debate. If that's so beyond the pale that it warrants cheering for his death, than what the hell is supposed to be an acceptable way of being a conservative and participating in politics?
The point being answered is “If someone is glad that Charlie Kirk, a moderate conservative squish, is dead and deserved to be killed for what he believed, they’d be ecstatic if I or people like me died / were killed based on what I believe”. The lefties who are cheering for his death would not have seen him as a moderate, and as mentioned many times, he himself referred to his view on a key issue as being very, very radical, making it less likely this would be his self-description, either.
This is the issue. Who is a moderate in the eyes of these people? If Kirk doesn't qualify, it means to most conservtive you can be, is a liberal.
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