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 doesn't compute for me. It's true that I trust fewer people to own guns around me than live in society around me. That means that gun rights are not the same as civilization rights. Many crazies are harmless when they do not own tools that can kill at a twitch of a finger and steeped in the culture of using them against perceived threats.
And on a larger scale, do you trust the state to determine whether or not you're crazy enough to take your rights away more or less than you trust the presumably small portion of crazies in society to not kill you?
Yeah Gun rights are a peculiar American psychosis where, if guns were to come into existence today, the current status quo would just have a 0% chance of being the way they entered 2025 American Society. Which isn't necessarily unique, looking at alcohol and a bunch of other 'oh we've kinda grandfathered them in with civilization' stuff.
I'm personally from a country with essentially no guns (Police are armed but I genuinely do not think I've ever seen one unholstered) and I just find it unfathomable why I'd want to change that fact. I'm sure shooting guns is fun, I've done it once on vacation and it was cool but I have no particular urgency for my next experience and I'd consider 'the rest of society is far more likely to be armed' would impinge upon my personal freedoms and vibes far more than the status quo.
Like whenever I'm in the USA and I feel an interaction is getting weird or somebody's notably antisocial-looking I've got something in the back of my head saying 'that guy could be packing'. Whilst illegal firearms exist in Australia, probabilistically the chances are so much lower and guys like Hassan just aren't gonna have the contacts to get them and then randomly overly escalate some shit.
Keep in mind that the U.S. is not just LA, DC, and NYC - it is also Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
I'm pretty much most countries like the US have gun rights.
How much? Okay that can be a problem, but when social services are three hours away and wild animals are an actual threat....you have to.
Europe is not the US
Not really, not to the same extent or of the same kind. Europe broadly doesn’t allow handguns or concealed carry, and makes getting a rifle difficult. The same is broadly true for Asia, Russia and a bit less so for India. Africa is unable to enforce this kind of thing.
The map of worldwide gun ownership per capita (which was made by the Swiss) is teal and blue globally, with a black blobs for America, Alaska and Yemen.
America doesn’t have handguns, ARs etc. because of its size and wild animals, it has them because it is (ironically) a very conservative country based on armed revolution.
Plus of course because you need them to protect yourself from all the people with guns. I’ve never seen posters here advocate for gun ownership to protect from wild animals, it’s always as a Schelling Point against government overreach or for self-defence.
Worth noting that this is a very common use-case IRL, although the self-defense question is of course much more interesting and gets more "air time." I've personally used an AR-pattern rifle to shoot predators in defense of livestock.
Defending oneself against predators is very rare but it's enough of a problem in bear territory in North America that ammunition sellers will advertise ammunition as being relevant against bears. Mountain lions (and maybe wolves) are also a potential threat that might warrant a handgun in some places, but don't pose the same challenges that killing a bear does.
I might just be falling for toxoplasma, true.
Very cool, care to tell more? The closest I’ve got is a friend using a BB rifle to fend off monkeys, which can get very vicious.
Not much to tell! Shot and killed a coyote off of the back porch with an AR (chambered in .223) while growing up. Probably at 75 yards? It had come up to steal a chicken. This was a not-infrequent occurrence back on the farm, and we've killed a variety of predators though a variety of means, but the AR-15 was our typical go-to because it's reliable, relatively light, didn't require cycling a bolt for a follow-up shot, and of course it's easy to put whatever sight or other attachments (such as a flashlight) on there that you want. Plus, of course, if you had to you could grab the same gun for a defense against a (human) home invader.
I'm not going to pretend I couldn't have done that with another weapon, but a semi-automatic "sporting" rifle in a small caliber like .223 is ideal for dealing with predators like coyotes and foxes.
Hunting rifles are overkill – they are often heavy, use a larger and more expensive round with more recoil, and you typically mount optics on them that might be more suited to longer ranges and actually hinder target acquisition at closer ranges (this depends entirely of course on your property layout – on a ranch you might prefer a scoped weapon.) Also, I think I prefer the pistol grip on the AR rifle if I am shooting standing. But a less powerful round like a .22 is not generally considered powerful enough to reliably kill a predator, particularly at longer ranges.
An AR is cheap, reliable, and lets you get the first and second shot on quickly. It's also very modular, meaning you can easily adapt the same gun for different situations (so for example I used the same lower but a different upper receiver chambered with a larger round to kill a deer while hunting). This can save you a few bucks, and also it's cool.
Obviously it's not the only option, but for that specific threat (predator, relatively close, say expected at 200 yards or within) I would want a rifle with the same characteristics: small and fast rifle round with a flat trajectory, iron or red dot sight, semi-automatic. And that's a very similar problem to the one the military is trying to solve (especially for dismounted urban combat) so the design convergence is natural.
I admit that the English solution for foxes is less convenient ;-)
More seriously, I think in the UK we would usually use a shotgun. Even rural UK is much more dense than the US and people worry about a missed shot or ricochet killing someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not that sticking to non-rifles keeps things safe… In a quite staggering display of insouciance both of my grandfathers managed to shoot a friend or significant other at some time in their lives, thankfully causing little damage in both cases.
Certain vice presidents have had trouble with shotguns too. Similar incidents have happened to a number of other celebrities over the years too.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link