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 -
If no one else is going to link to Scott's latest CW-related post, I guess I'll try to meet the mods' wishes for a top level comment... (Though I didn't re-read it, so...)
Fascism Can't Mean Both A Specific Ideology And A Legitimate Target
I agree, inasmuch we stipulate "Political violence in America is morally unacceptable" means "literally, categorically unacceptable, due to our assessment of the threat of fascism" and "(at the current time)" ignores the possibility of near-future change in the threat-assessment. Though I emphatically oppose political violence, I don't think it would be logically incongruent to leave open the possibility that fascism is bad enough that we're near the point of political violence being acceptable. But I don't think Scott's doing a motte-and-bailey, by using a narrow denotation; just stating a motte, with the expectation his readers take it at face value.
Characteristic of Scott, the post is a neat exercise in logical tidiness. However, it only gestures at the bigger, scarier question: How do societies classify danger and determine when violence becomes permissible? The classification of threats is important, because names carry significant policy weight (e.g., Trump labeling Antifa a domestic terrorist organization...). Label something "fascism" as a distinct ideology, and you direct attention towards connotations and lineage. However, use the same term as a moral epithet (i.e., a catch-all for political enemies) and you alter the rhetorical perception.
Not to be rude, but this feels like an unusually weak post for Scott. Those celebrating Kirk’s murder would obviously disagree with his third premise, “Political violence in America is morally unacceptable (at the current time).” In fact I’m having trouble imagining someone that would agree with his first premise, that most Americans are fascists, without believing political violence was acceptable. This post seems aimed at a constituency that I’m not sure exists, those that believe fascists are everywhere but are opposed to any political violence.
Political violence against the majority would be novel.
Would it? Is that not just most cases of domestic terrorism?
How often are terrorist attacks designed to discriminate between victims based on self-proclaimed ideology? Isn't the terrifying aspect of terrorism that attacks are largely indiscriminate?
If the target group is actually the majority, then any indiscriminate attack hurts the correct target in expectation.
(Besides, my impression is that domestic terrorism is more often than not in fact properly targeted - racists go for black churches, Islamists go for Christmas markets, etc.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think most of the time political domestic terrorists don't think that the majority is actually opposed to their ideology. Instead, the logic seems to be that society is stuck in some kind of controlled equilibrium, the majority is aligned but stuck in some kind of Schelling point or false consciousness, and all that's needed is some shock to the the system that will bring about a series of rapid changes to bring the ideology to fruition.
Otherwise, if you believe society is genuinely against you and everything you stand for, it seems like a very visible act of terrorism can only go badly for your cause.
I think you underestimate the amount of domestic terrorism that is either not strategic at all, or seems to have the purpose of sending a message like "it's not worth the trouble to keep oppressing my allies". The latter must be the case for instances of religious and ethnic domestic terrorism - surely the PKK or ETA didn't think that the Turks or Spanish actually wish for them to have more rights and must just be awakened to the fact.
More options
Context Copy link
The vast majority of political domestic terrorists in democracies are regionalist movements - normally full-on secessionists (like the IRA, ETA, and Tamil Tigers) but occasionally groups demanding a level of autonomy that would require the central government and its voter base to compromise their principles (like the first Klan and later the Redeemers in the former Confederacy).
Most such groups think that they have supermajority support among "their people" - they may even be right - but are aware that they don't have majority support or anything close to it in the country as a whole.
I think the same paradigm applies to the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, and other radical Black groups in the US - the only reason that they aren't secessionist is the absence of a defined territory to secede in.
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