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 -
Wouldn't you agree there is a meaningful, important difference between "supporting holocaust denialism" and "not wanting holocaust denialism to be censored by the government, because wrong and dumb as it is, suppressing it is the thin end of the wedge on the government choking out free political speech on a larger scale"? I think that is a good analogy for the mainstream Blue position on the riots. "Obviously looting and arson are wrong, but if we let the police seriously intervene, they'll use that as an opportunity to squash legitimate protests, too, so que sera sera." It seems worth distinguishing, on a moral and norms-maintenance level, from the accusation that Blue Tribe genuinely, actively wanted buildings to be burned and looted. Reluctant tolerance isn't support.
(Obviously this is reliant on a… biased… view of how institutionally untrustworthy cops are. But granting this factually-dubious belief, then it seems coherent to be leery of riots-suppression without properly "supporting" the riots. And in fairness, the validity of that leeriness is not necessarily reliant on the straightforwardly-wrong claims about how prevalent police killings are. Conceivably the police may be tempted to unfairly suppress legitimate BLM protests even in a world where the core claim of the BLM protests was wrong, precisely because it's all the more tempting to suppress your enemies' speech if you genuinely, sincerely believe them to be spreading damaging lies about you.)
Personally I do think there's some amount of illegal violence you just have to grudgingly tolerate, if you want a meaningful right to protest to exist in your country. Crowd control is notoriously hard, let alone in a grassroots, spontaneous movement. In the real world, "Sure, you can protest… but if even a hundred people nation-wide get violent, then we'll send in the troops and condemn the entire movement" is as good as a ban having large-scale protests at all. Now, I think the BLM riots clearly passed that threshold, at least in some states. But it's not a binary. Tolerating some amount of rioting makes sense to me, just on general principle - never mind that cops had plausible motivation to hold special ill will against BLM because their own interests were at stake.
I don’t think that argument coheres. There is just a step difference between permitting Holocaust denialism and permitting massive multibillion dollar mayhem.
One could make the argument about protest if there was maybe a car or two turned on fire. Still despicable but within the pale to say “but all of the peaceful protest is worth not shutting down the very small rioting.”
But when you get to night after night attempted to siege a federal courthouse it’s just too far removed from a concern about protest.
I think there's a deep difference of gut-level instincts between the tribes here. Someone left-wing will quite naturally think that permitting Holocaust denialism would be much worse than permitting arbitrary thuggish looting and mayhem, because the former is the first stepping stone on a road that leads potentially to dictatorship and genocide, while the second (they perceive) is only ever going to be a marginal problem, not an existential threat to civilization.
Well, I don't know that they'd see the besieged courthouse as falling under the "rioting", or indeed, that I do. That seems to be a different matter. By "riots" I would refer to the random, apolitical, anarchic mayhem using the broad context of the protests as an excuse to run amok and pillage from random businesses. The arson, the theft, the intimidation and extortion of random homeowners. This was clearly not the motivation behind laying siege to the courthouse, which was obviously a targeted political act. Perhaps the tactic is too aggressive to fall under permissible civil protest, perhaps it tips over into revolutionary violence; but that's an issue of degree, not of kind.
Except the left cheered on (or tried to downplay) the siege and was worried about “police violence” vis-à-vis the attackers. I would’ve shot the lot.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm on the left, and I disagree heavily. And many on the left do as well. That thought process requires buying into a particularly anti-liberal view of the world, which many progressive leftists certainly do, but which is nowhere near defining or universal among leftists. Notably, believing that one knows so much about the future and cause-and-effect that they can have confidence that permitting Holocaust denialism would be more likely to lead to dictatorship and genocide than less is certainly a massive act of hubris and could only be justified through faith, given what we know about history. Which is all well and good, but it certainly should be openly stated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link