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 -
The House adopts a resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk; 95 Democrats voted "yes", 58 voted "no", 38 voted "present".
Were I in a position to do so, would I vote to acquiesce to the left's request to honor one of their slain heroes? A George Floyd or a Joseph Rosenbaum, or perhaps a historical figure like Lenin or Mao? It seems that two distinct answers are in order.
The first answer is: yes, of course, "by default". I would be happy to vote yes "by default", with a taciturn attitude, as an expression of my own amiable and magnanimous nature, and out of a want of avoiding the appearance of pettiness. I can't deny that such a gesture would be a matter of pride, an attempt to introduce my own form of "unruliness" into the proceedings...
But supposing we wanted something more than a "default" course of action, something we could fully assent to in good conscience? Supposing then?
I admit to possessing a certain degree of permeability; there is hardly a passion amongst my enemies that cannot inspire a concomitant passion within me, if it is expressed and held rightly (allowing that "rightly" for me is "wrongly" for a great many others). I want to know that it means something to you. I want to know that anything at all means anything to you. Then we can walk together, if only for a time. It is not the expression of raw untrammeled sentiment, nor is it the expression of a rational program of means and ends, but rather it is something that threads the needle of navigating the Scylla and Charybdis and excavates the unnameable space between them. (Don't take this as an invitation to pen your own panegyrics; I have not the talent to evaluate them, I'm in no state to hear confessions, not me... the most I can do for anyone is to remind them of the proper standards of decorum, to gesture insistently that the question must be treated with an appropriate amount of respect...)
The primary distinction for me is not between good and evil, or purity and corruption, but between the ensouled and the soulless. The indifference with which this concept is often treated is simply more proof to me that the distinction has, in fact, latched onto something real. Undoubtedly, many of my enemies and I walk the same path; and conversely, anyone on my "side" who lacks the requisite sense of aesthetics is an ally of convenience only, and not someone who could be counted on to genuinely relieve me of my loneliness.
George Floyd's death was not a result of a political assassination. This is an important distinction. Nor was he really anyone anybody knew about. Heather Heyer might have had a better claim. But honestly, the best comparison is probably MLK as there are few instances to choose from. Would you hold a moment of silence for him?
Christian, non-violent, tragically shot. I might not agree with everything he wished for but it'd be impolite not to memorialize him
Non-violent is overrated. Activists try to pretend that nonviolent is the same thing as nonharmful, and have invented very clever ways to harm people for a cause without being "violent".
Also, nonviolence harms everyone because a lot of nonviolence depends on taking advantage of other people's reluctance to use violence to prevent harm. That encourages violence in society and is a form of destroying the commons. It also involves media manipulation, which is a fancy word for lying (which is of course a nonviolent act).
Remember that debanking Covid protestors in Canada was an act of nonviolence. (Actually, so is debanking anyone.)
From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society. He successfully advocated for views which were obviously wrong, and likely did so while knowing he was wrong. He was a persistent purveyor of disinformation. Even supposing that he did not understand the fascist nature of the views he espoused (which he likely did in private), enacting his political and cultural ideals would, in fact, result in fascism. Preventing fascism is the most important goal of democracy, and Kirk was daily working to undermine that. His kind of political activism was inherently illegitimate, since it sought, wittingly or not, to demolish liberal democracy and its protection of minorities. Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. Kirk did far more harm to society than most "violent" criminals locked up in prison, and yet he was allowed to walk free and spread his hateful ideas unchecked. That he was typically polite cannot hide that his ideas were inherently hateful. Kirk was "nonviolent", but he was the propaganda arm of a system that every day uses violence to control marginalized people. Without people like Kirk, that system of violence cannot survive, and so Kirk is responsible for a great deal of systemic injustice.
Ensuring frequent peaceful transfer of power is the most important goal of democracy. Then maintaining the legitimacy of the system. Then ensuring that the representatives represent the people.
Preventing fascism is nice, but probably not even in the top 5 goals of democracy, and arguably not a goal of democracy per se at all.
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