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 -
For clarification, Brian Kilmeade suggested killing the mentally ill homeless.
And it is fucked up and he should have been fired, at the very least for being so fucking stupid about it. As for the Watters comment, his 'leave it, bomb it, or gas it' remark clearly falls into the category of non-literal, shock jock hyperbole. It's in the same rhetorical family as 'Eat the rich' and other classic leftist slogans - it uses violent imagery to attack a symbolic institution, but no reasonable person interprets it as a literal plan to commit violence. So there is a major difference between these two statements that you are eliding - and that's before we get to the whataboutism with Jones - Watters expressed the desire to do violence against an institution, whereas Kilmeade expressed the desire to kill millions of people.
But the real kicker is neither of them are politicians. Neither of them are running for attorney general, a position that puts them in charge of determining justice for the millions of people in their jurisdiction, and neither of them expressed an explicit desire to see their direct political opponents dead and then doubled down on it afterwards. I really hope this doesn't count as consensus building when I say that everyone knows internally the difference between wishing for the death of faceless enemies and thinking of a person, a specific person, and wanting them dead.
Also, are the mentally ill homeless and every other country in the world core constituents of the Democrat party? Because I thought that was just a snarky joke.
According to the article linked to by the OP, very specifically mentally ill (implicitly criminal and socially dangerous) homeless who refuse help from social services.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link