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 -
So we just had an emergency lab meeting about the Charlie Kirk situation. Someone screenshotted an instagram story from one of my fellow lab members and sent in anonymous email to my PI (professor/supervisor). The instagram story said basically that Charlie Kirk's death was a good thing, actually. PI didn't name names, and it was also unclear what exactly the anonymous emailer wanted, but did caution us that this is a dangerous environment to be posting this kind of thing. EDIT: He also said that he STRONGLY disagrees with this position, but he's very in favor of free speech and would defend unnamed individual from the university/public if push came to shove, despite disagreeing with their politics.
I have a couple thoughts about this. Firstly, it's legitimately pretty scary that internet posting is now important enough to warrant an emergency lab meeting. It feels like we rapidly are descending into an authoritarian anti-free speech environment (not that universities were bastions of this to begin with). My own social media and blog are extremely clean, but it's trivially easy to link this account with my real name, and I've posted some not kosher things here before.
Secondly, universities/leftists have kind of done this to themselves. This is the old Cory Doctrow/ Freddie DeBoer stick. Trigger warnings, anti-racism and cancel culture have all led to this kind of environment where speech can be policed in this way by the state and doesn't look hypocritical.
Thirdly, and I hate to say this, but whichever one of my colleagues posted this is a fucking idiot, along with most of the left in my generation. I still think of myself as a socialist, perhaps less so recently, and I want to shake this person and ask what good this kind of statement actually does for our cause. Do you want more vigilante killings? The right is going to come up on top with that one, as most lefties in this country are strangely anti-gun. Do you want to win elections? Advocating for murder isn't very popular with most of the electorate. Do you want continued science funding so you can have a job and accomplish the things that you think are so important you dedicated 8-12 hours of your day to, every day? Then stop tarnishing the reputation of universities and science in general with your crazy politics: our stipends come from taxpayer money. As I've written on earlier, scientists are woefully naive about politics. This is not how you win political victories, which makes me think that the goal isn't actually political victory, but some kind of LARP/ in-group signaling game.
Despite my dislike of the man, I am staunch enough in my opposition to death in general and murder in particular that Kirk's death brings me no joy. A human being has died, and that's never a joyful thing, even when it's necessary to save more lives - and here I don't think there's a plausible argument that it was. Never mind the question of his family, who have all my condolences.
But with that said, I have significantly more sympathy for people who celebrate his death than seems to be common among people who don't share that celebratory mood. It doesn't feel outrageous to me that people are enjoying this. Imagine that someone you really hated was randomly struck down by a freak bolt of lightning. Wouldn't you be pretty giddy? And if someone tried to argue that this made you just as bad as if you were advocating for that guy's murder, wouldn't that seem pretty unfair? Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead from The Wizard of Oz is the canonical anthem for celebrating this sort of "such-and-such celebrity you hate has randomly died" breaking news, and you'd have to have a pretty warped view of the plot to think that the Munchkins were signaling their support of random vigilante killings. Whether out of cowardice or morality, none of them would have been willing to drop a house on the Wicked Witch - that's why it took a freak tornado before they were freed from her tyranny. It just happened. But once it does happen, celebrating this happy turn of events is perfectly wholesome.
I contend that for the average left-wing rando, "some nutjob has shot Charlie Kirk" has about the same valence as "Charlie Kirk has been struck by lightning". It's completely outside their control, it doesn't scan as something they or their tribe did. They don't own a gun, no one they know owns a gun - gun ownership itself is an outgroup marker. The killer may as well have been a storm cloud or a Kansas farmhouse. "Charlie Kirk has randomly died" is a Thing That Just Happened, and they're celebrating it as a turn of events, and they're genuinely caught off-guard when the Right perceives this as them supporting assassinations in a proactive sense.
An interpretation that leftists are responding to a freak accident as a bystander is somewhat accurate. Rather than an act of God, like a hurricane, this is more like civilians watching an enemy bomber fall from the sky over their city. The civilians look up to the sky and cheer. The civilians aren't killing anyone themselves, no, and the fact they are bystanders -- victims, even -- relieves any responsibility for cheering on death. It could even be considered imperative to cheer. This is their city, their neighbors, and friends suffering under the bombardment. Who wouldn't cheer as the enemy is made to pay?
Leftists don't take this behavior seriously, are having a good time, and don't consider themselves responsible. I suspect that is usually true. Individuals enjoy becoming partners in crime by crossing a taboo, signal allegiance, or justify celebration with a commitment to conflict. The performative intent is also there when leftists decide to dance on the grave of a dead healthcare CEO then decide to worship his dreamy murderer.
Don't get me wrong I am glad that most expressions of celebration are made by bystanders having a good time rather than by hardened killers. This doesn't ease concerns or my condemnation. Don't celebrate murders is a good norm and weakening it among a significant, visible category of people raises the risk we see predictably bad outcomes. That leftists do not consider or respect this risk is of no comfort. In darker times, should they become apparent, It wasn't my fault isn't going to cut it.
Plus, it's not as if leftists are detached from the events. Rather than a comedian looking for a punch-line to tragedy they care as much any other group. They jump in the trenches when its their turn to spin the Guess the Perp wheel and argue about this policy or another. They have a good time celebrating the death of their enemy, then they have another kind of time of as they commiserate with each other on a perceived state of crisis. They have a third, additional kind of time declaring fascism of yesterday eclipsed by the fascism of tomorrow. They are no more or less accidental bystanders to these social phenomena as any other part of the lefty egregore.
What is the polar opposite case? I'd expect there to be plenty of right-wing anons dancing on the grave of, say, Hasan Piker. It's not a 1:1 comparison. Kirk, unlike Piker, was legitimized inside mainstream political power, whereas Piker is still primarily a shitposter millionaire who streams to teenagers and gets NYT profiles. Right wing anons aren't usually professors comfortable with expressing support for political murders. But, yeah, I wouldn't say that the right-wing is impervious to breaking this norm, or even faithful followers of this norm. The political class still mutters the words, but it doesn't take.
In the future, if we aren't living it, we may all have permission to cheer on one person or another bleeding out on a stage. We may even take turns. It's a darn shame.
I agree, but the two different cases call for two very different responses. I think accusing everyone who cheers of actively encouraging assassinations is ineffective. First, because it's correctly perceived by the cheerers as inaccurately modeling their mental state, and therefore as wrong-headed criticism that can be written off altogether. Second, because it has a significant risk of Streisanding the idea of actively supporting assassinations among people who currently don't support them, but might conceivably come round to doing so if critics accidentally create spurious "common knowledge" that everyone on the left supports them.
It sounds sort of like you want to slot this into something like trolling or outrage bait? I don't think I agree with that if so. Yes I don't care that he's dead. I love that he's dead. He was evil! That my enemies are incorrectly modeling my behavior and, were they only to change how they treated me, sounds like something that I would want to believe if I knew my participation in an activity was irresponsible or unjustified. Passing this responsibility onto others, especially onto my enemy, sounds ideal. You made me do it is tried and true.
Personally, I think this is already out of the bag, among all manner of other things that make one a leftist, fascist, good, or bad. The left-coding isn't for the benefit of or in response to the right. The left-coding is and -- rather than something new -- we should consider this a resurgence of an old meme the left has relied on and used to great effect before. I suppose the right could try a 4D play and reclaim calls to violence (doesn't go well for them) or attempt its own social media-gov't speech restriction on behalf of conservatives which also doesn't go well.
I agree nobody should want to will something like this into existence or exacerbate it. A vicious, more violent left benefits some. What appropriate response do you have in mind?
As corny as it sounds, appealing to people's better nature, taking the moral high ground. Don't go on the attack trying to look for ulterior motives and ideology behind the cheering - just call out the cheering as unkind and inhuman at the rawest level. The approach should be to shame people into self-reflection within their own consciences. "This? This is what you want? This is righteous? Are you sure? I don't believe that. I don't believe that deep down, you or anyone decent can believe that. We wouldn't wish it on you or anyone on your side. Truly we wouldn't. Please don't darken your own hearts by going down that road." Above all else keep the clip in circulation, with all its visceral, disquieting pathos. The idea that Charlie Kirk Is Dead can be thoughtlessly celebrated, but the actual sight of it - no, not unless you're a sociopath.
I suspect you are near-completely missing the extremely common human talent for Dehumanizing the Enemy. Why wouyld you not cheer when a carnifex gets destroyed. You a genestealer cultist?
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