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 -
Yes, there are plenty of people who celebrate white nationalist attacks online. Just because they're doing it on 4chan or Telegram doesn't mean they don't exist.
Is the only thing that matters the literal last event to happen? Silly. Especially because on the same day a dude radicalized by neonazis online shot three kids at Evergreen.
Let's see here
I say that right or left wing, it's bad to associate the violent actions of a very few rare individuals as indicative of the whole group. Pretty consistent, nonpartisan, principled.
You seem to be saying that it's ok to associate them, but only if it's the actions of left radicals and we should ignore the white supremacist attacks, the assassination of Minnesota Dems, the attack on Paul Pelosi, etc. Hmm, seems inconsistent, I wonder why this logic of blame isn't applied equally.
Oh wow, this saddens me so much that a stranger on the internet disagrees.
What's "my side"? Are you only able to conceptualize politics, with its myriad of complex topics and viewpoints, on a single axis? That there are only two groups of "us" and "them"? One needs only look at other nations, like Germany, India or Brazil with a different electoral system allowing more political divergence to understand it's not just "left vs right".
And even those are still loose alliances of people with many varying belief systems in them.
If someone was in the 60s claiming that violence never happened to black people at that time, they would be wrong whether they said it before or after the Kennedy assassination.
I didn't know that I was this important for my words on a small site like this to have great impact on the world. I must be way more influential and awesome than I thought. Thank you for such kind praise of my importance.
Yes, if you say that in vacuum it looks great. You are saying that as a way to deflect someone's sincere concerns about a very current issue. You should go to Palestine and tell someone in a bombed-out home about how awful "violence in general" is.
Show me where you see anyone celebrating this.
The point is that they would have to be very stupid to say this, because it is very obviously not going to play over well regardless of what an epic and brave truth it is. It is clearly inappropriate to most people, and would not endear the grieving nation to the plight of black people. If anything, it would be counter-productive. Kind of like this very ill-advised thing you're doing now. You are just dumping oil on yourself next to an open flame and blaming the fire for putting you in a precarious situation. I am telling you that it is not a good idea to be pouring oil on yourself.
You do not belong on this site. You are gleefully violating every principle of this space with snide comments like that.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
He was literally on a site posting about it beforehand being cheered on.
Is that good enough for you, white supremacists actively encouraging the attack?
Again, facts don't care about your feelings. Facts don't care to be "politically correct". They are just facts, and the facts are that political violence is rare.
I had thought this was a rationalist aligned site, and yet you seem to be arguing that your feels beat reals. Perhaps you don't belong?
Who cares what your feels are, put up some statistics, give some numbers. Validate your point. I have earlier in a post
There you go. Show some math that it's at least 750 left wing political attacks and I'll concede that .001% of Harris voters (probably one of the closest approximations of the "left" even though it would likely underestimate cause of non voters splitting between the two) are politically violent. Huge victory proving me wrong, a tenth of a fraction of a fraction (a term famously used to convey large percentages).
Didn't read lol
I think I was incredibly gracious, giving you a very low bar to clear to prove political violence isn't rare at 10% of 1% of 1% of leftists.
Even just a fraction of a fraction is considered a small amount, you got a 90% discount. If you still can't manage it, maybe consider you are just wrong.
Suddenly you care about what other people think? What was it you said earlier?"Oh wow, this saddens me so much that a stranger on the internet disagrees." (Words spoken to a stranger on the internet about why he should not disagree with you)
Well that makes two of us. I didn't convince you. Boo hoo. Why do you demand I stand and put my best foot forward when you dismiss the fact that your own arguments are not convincing? You clearly just want to shut down the conversation, which is why you're here shitting up every thread instead of making a new one about the kids you supposedly care about.
You really come off like you care less about dead kids than you do about the opportunity they provide as a distraction. If that weren't the case, you'd bring them up in contexts besides the death of Charlie Kirk.
By contrast, the reason people are talking about Charlie Kirk is because they actually do care about his death. This reflects poorly on you, and only adds fuel to the fire.
Not a single word you have written this week is to your benefit.
I am not going to read anything else you say because I think you are a terrible person, and everything you say makes you look more like that. I am absolutely certain you think Charlie's death is a good thing, and your only concern is that anyone disagrees. From the spamming of conservative slogans I have never said in my life to the dismissal of good faith argumentation, you make yourself impossible to be kind to, and I am normally very patient. If you want to make things worse for yourself, reply anyway, but I won't see it.
You are getting very agitated for someone who "didn't read lol." This post is terrible: antagonistic, full of personal attacks and mind-reading, and the final flounce. Additionally, we're informed you're sending abusive DMs. The only reason I'm not banning you for the latter is that I have only the recipient's word for it. However, if this behavior continues, you will be banned.
I know the site needs some DEI initiatives to protect the endangered left, but it really does feel like you have overlooked stuff like words being put in people's mouths and antagonism just because it's aimed rightwards. This is the result. I won't act like I conducted myself admirably but the temperature had escalated enormously before I even got here. Rest assured I have no intention of saying anything else to him
We are often accused of giving "DEI" passes to leftists. I'm not going to bother arguing that point for the umpteenth time. I'm just going to say that no one is ever getting a pass for sending insulting DMs to people or justifying it with "he started it."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you believe your general attitude of insults presents as a person operating in good faith with an open mind to change? All you've done this entire time is to continue the "feels > reals" discourse rather than actually cite any numbers, statistics, or information.
Hmm, does this mean you don't care about kids dying if you haven't made a thread on it? I hope you hold yourself to the standard of "no thread = no care" you hold me to.
You're absolutely certain how? Because you made it up in your head and therefore it's real?
Why would it matter if you said it or not? The truth remains facts don't care about your feelings and facts don't care to be politically correct.
I've met plenty of patient people before and none of them have became angry because of a commonly used slogan. You're an interesting outlier.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then don't comment.
He also DMed me
So he read it enough to get really upset. Ironic, it evidences the argument that it's feelings based and not facts based.
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