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 -
This seems like an argument that it would in fact have been ethical to assassinate the Wicked Witch. This is fair enough regarding the plot of the movie, but I don't think it really challenges my underlying point that there are circumstances where it is commonly understood that you can rejoice in someone's death without implying that you would have supported murdering them.
To get away from rulers, political actors, and indeed, any hatred being involved, I think a good illustration of this principle can be found in people with a religious objection to euthanasia. If some old person in terrible pain happens to pass away in the night, it would be perfectly natural for a staunchly anti-euthanasia Catholic relative of theirs to thank God for this merciful turn of events. Yet here, the whole point is that they wouldn't have found it acceptable to take action to speed it along. That's why it's such a relief to them when it happens anyway, through no 'fault' of their own. In the same way, I think it is coherent for someone who hated Charlie Kirk and felt his existence was net-negative for the world to say "although I obviously don't support actually murdering people who I wish were dead, the fact is that I wished he'd drop dead, so as a passive observer I'm glad it happened".
(Naturally other concerns apply in the case of cheering on an assassination - ie it might encourage more assassins, whereas expressing relief that a terminally ill senior citizen passed away in their sleep is not going to alter the rate at which it happens. But my point was narrower than "it's okay to cheer on Kirk's death", which in any case I don't actually believe myself; my point was "celebrating Kirk's death post facto should not be equated with support for actively assassinating people like him".)
Having rewatched the whole scene:
Glinda says that Dorothy is the Munchkins' "national heroine" before Dorothy gets around to explaining that she didn't mean to drop a house on the WWotE, and then there are the lines "we thank you very sweetly for doing it so neatly; you've killed her so completely that we thank you very sweetly". So yes, they were, in fact, signalling their support of assassinating* the WWotE. The WWotE is one of the few circumstances in which that is (presumably) Fine Actually because she was a
witchtyrant. I think this is just a complete non-example of the point you were trying to make, which doesn't in and of itself mean the point is wrong but does make it not especially useful to bring up.I do think I'd be mostly behind the "don't celebrate deaths unless you'd have supported bringing them about" principle of etiquette. The case you mention is really a non-central case born out of highly non-consequential edicts, and even then it's considered pretty gauche to publically celebrate.
*I'm not using the term "vigilante" because we don't generally consider killing monarchs to be "vigilantism"; the monarch is the state, not a criminal, so killing her is war or rebellion (and, of course, assassination).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link