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 -
I think I'd count Sanford, Ferrier, Routh, and Monper as left-wing assassination plots on Trump. I wouldn't count Allen (apparently just nuts, claimed to have also sent ricin to Elizabeth II), Crooks (ideology unclear), Casap (neo-Nazi attempting to start a race war), or the various Iranian government operatives - indeed, I'd count Casap, though not any of the others, as right-wing.
Technically, Ferrier's assassination attempt wasn't violent (she mailed him ricin), and technically Routh and Monper didn't get around to taking actual violent actions. Sanford absolutely counts, though, and if you count all attempted murders as "violent" (as many statistics do) then Ferrier/Routh would as well (Monper didn't get around to anything I'd label an "attempt", because he was dumb enough to post on social media that he was going to commit a mass shooting).
TBQH I think that setting up to snipe a presidential candidate at a political rally is in and of itself prima facie an act of political violence -- absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary (as with (probably) Hinkley, for example) I don't see how you can tag it as "IDK, lol -- crazy people amirite?".
Yes, it counts as "political violence". But I wouldn't count it as "left-wing political violence".
I would, again presumptively -- it's certainly possible that somebody might try to shoot a right wing candidate for not being right wing enough or something, but absent some compelling evidence I'd assume that shooting at a political candidate is in itself a pretty good sign that you are on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Crooks was a registered Republican and some people who knew him said he was an outspoken conservative, although he did also donate $15 to ActBlue before that. You're right about the presumption (and I applied it to many of my inclusions), but the above suffices for me to declare it at least partially rebutted in Crooks' case. The obvious possibility raised by that info is "thought conservatism in the 'States would do better without Donald Trump leading it". Again, though, I wouldn't count it as "right-wing political violence" either; it's just not clear what the fuck he was thinking.
Allen and Crooks are the arguable ones, though.
What people? From what I've read, he functionally didn't have any friends and barely interacted with anyone outside coursework.
[...]
From a Guardian article.
Every single other person interviewed describes him as a weird loner who never expressed any personal details beyond a general anxiety about doing well in school. Do you really believe that this one memory from a random classmate of the weird loner standing on the side of the room with no other people is the dispositive proof of his sincere beliefs?
Proof? No. Enough evidence, when combined with his membership of the Republicans, to make the "most Westerners who want to shoot Donald Trump are SJWs" heuristic dubious? Yes.
As noted above, I wouldn't count Crooks toward either "side"'s tally. Just too many question marks. As also noted above, there are plenty of others whom I would count as "SJers trying to kill Trump".
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