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 do you think that politicians that advocate for increased speed limits (= more highway deaths) are fair game for assassination? Or is it just the gay stuff?
(Kind of irrelevant since Kirk was explicitly not a politician -- so the chances of him getting elected and passing a gulags for gays law were zero -- so the ad absurdum of your position is that it would be OK to shoot some guy mouthing off in a bar about how much he hates gays -- which actually is kind of what's worrying to normiecons about this particular rationalization)
Did you see the section where I said that it requires action? A normiecon mouthing off at the bar isn't taking direct action to create said law. Kirk wasn't just a random dude running around to debate people. He was actively involved in political lobbying, funding, and trying to get laws passed.
What about religious stuff, gun stuff, free speech stuff, tax stuff. You seem to think this is some sort of gotcha, when you have clearly failed to ascertain my political tribe
I don't think the last one is true, and anyways "political lobbyists not on your team" is a much broader class than I'm comfortable opening the season on...
I don't think assassination is a good response for people advocating changes to those laws either, no.
I don't think assassination is a good response either, but I suppose I lack sympathy for Kirk and I find the wailing and gnashing of people on the right to be just as annoying as the wailing and gnashing of people on the left.
What's the correct response to political assassinations in your view?
Such an action is toxic to the norms of discourse that is fundamental to a free, democratic society. They should be caught, tried by a jury of their peers, and put to death.
However at what point does one person's political assassination become another person's freedom fighter?
Sometime after you have a revolution and win, usually -- I can't think of any offhand in the (quite murderey) history of American politics, at any rate.
Do you have any examples of actual assassins to whom history has been kind that you'd like to discuss? Even Brutus et al don't get very good P.R. these days.
I'm confused, do you think I'm pro political assassination? I detailed my stance farther up if in a spin-off of the parent chain if you are interested.
I feel like if we dig through history for some ideological firebrands, we definitely could find some that were killed for their speech. And a historical consensus that is mostly ambivalent about their deaths.
Like Lincoln?
You don't seem to think this assassination is something to be too concerned about -- which is troubling.
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