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 -
Something that's getting frustrating to me around the discussion of Charlie Kirk's assassination (man it feels weird to say that) is that conservatives are being told to eat the Paul Pelosi attack as a right wing thing.
But the attacker (David Depape), was, if he was even capable of holding any sort of political position at all, not even remotely right wing, at least not in any way that any right winger would identify as a bedfellow.
The guy lived in a bus in Berkley, CA doing drugs in a polyamorous sex cult. He clearly went completely insane, then attacked Paul Pelosi. This is the type of thing that conservatives are trying to stop. This event is neutral at best, and more realistically just left-wing cities eating themselves. The opening paragraph from a sfchronicle article about his daughter is one of the craziest I've ever seen:
I'm also getting sick of hearing that the right wing is supposed to eat January 6th. We've had every single right wing politician "disavowing" this for the last 5 years, despite the fact that the only person killed on this day was a right wing woman.
January 6th was one day of protesting which followed months of protesting by left wingers.
Generally my frustration is this idea that right wing and left wing politics and expressions of those politics are equals, or just different poles of an ideology. They're not. One of my favorite articles: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/ expands on what I mean.
(No the woke won't debate you, here's why - required reading around here imo)
These two ideologies, western liberal democracy, which the conservatives are still, maybe stupidly, trying to work inside of, and some bastard form of revolutionary marxism, are not two sides fighting over territory. There's no compromise where we meet in the middle. It's winner take all - either we remain a western liberal democracy, or we don't.
I think people are waking up to this, which is good. Sam Hyde's video today about this was pretty good: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_czBvLB-DwY (watch the first 5 minutes at least, please. It's good.)
JD's video was also really good (a slightly normie version of the same message): https://youtube.com/watch?v=ngofqx9EfcM
The online left seems incredibly frustrated right now. They are trying to link Paul Pelosi and those two MN “lawmakers” deaths to the right. I don’t think it’s working at all. Normies are not buying it. They’ve got very weak arguments and you can tell they’re losing the messaging fight and trying to throw whatever they can at the wall. Nothing is sticking.
P.S. has anyone else noticed this new “lawmaker” noun? I just picked up on it in the last few weeks but it’s absolutely everywhere. Has this been the case for a while? This is such a strange euphemism. Google says it’s because it’s gender neutral, but I don’t recall this from the time when we were changing all the other gendered words. It seems like there’s some other objective here with this change than gender.
Democrats would like to distance themselves from this lunatic. Republicans successfully distanced themselves from those lunatics. Is it any more complicated than that?
And now you’ve got me confused about the “lawmaker” thing. I’m normally pretty darn skeptical of Google trends, but it’s not subtle. Wikipedia starts with legislators, though the Responses section prefers lawmakers. CBS, CNN and NPR appear to favor lawmakers, as does Fox. The Guardian was the only one I found that uses both terms, and I suspect they wouldn’t have bothered if there weren’t two uses in one sentence. Even OANN gets in on it!
This is definitely some sort of fad, and I have no idea why.
I mean zoom out the graph and the baseline rate sees a very small gradual rise. Part of the issue is that the AP News wording is more viral than you’d think and more news outlets than you’d expect outright copy headlines in some form. (Or plagiarize)
It’s definitely Jan 6, 2021 that is when it starts going. Again, copy and paste I strongly suggest is the issue! This is non representative but contains some front pages on Jan 7: I stopped counting at 30 front pages, but exactly 20 of them mention “lawmakers” in bold headings. Phrases repeat suspiciously: “lawmakers duck for cover” dominates, and variants like “lawmakers hunker down” and even “lawmakers duck to find cover”, “lawmakers are forced into hiding”, etc. and sure enough, AP News article from the evening of J6 (I assume the date is wrong, shows J5 on the website which is clearly impossible) has “forced lawmakers into hiding” in the first paragraph. AP is a news wire service, by the way, deliberately designed for this purpose; and yes, I think it’s harmful to press freedom and true expression because the coordination effect is too large (popular however because it saves $$ since local papers are encouraged to basically paraphrase rather than write fresh copy, meaning fewer man hours and even more so the case when on a time crunch).
To me it’s a somewhat memetic natural process from there among the smallish club of news headline writers, with spikes on particular popular topics or articles. That’s why you see weird patterns, I actually expect such, precisely because of the AP (Reuters also has a similar effect but smaller).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link