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 -
So, to get this straight, your position is that shooting Trump and having Biden in his browser history are roughly equivalent levels of evidence as to whom he wanted dead?
My hypothesis is that a guy, for whom there has yet to be produced a single piece of evidence that he expressed an opinion on either Trump or Biden in any direction (before or after the shooting, via manifesto or the like) who didn’t just search for Biden, but specifically both Biden and Trump campaign stops in relation to their distance from his residence, picked Trump as his target for assassination, because Trump’s campaign stop in PA was indeed the closest to his residence made by either candidate.
Yes.
I strongly suspect if Biden had made an announced, scheduled public appearance closer to Bethel Park, PA than Trump did, that Biden would have been the target.
You seem to be very invested in your contrarian take, but I'll try to spell this out one more time. Shooting Trump is strong evidence of his opinion on Trump. You don't get to exclude the one huge and highly unusual piece of evidence that we all have and then say the pithy culture-warrior line "there has yet to be produced a single piece of evidence...".
The default boring position is that he hated Trump for political reasons, because Trump is a divisive political figure and he shot Trump.
Now, it's possible the default boring position is wrong, but you need strong evidence if you want to convince non-ideologues like us of this. Searching for Biden campaign stops he could attend does not even distinguish him from fans of Biden. I would struggle to call it "evidence" of anything.
I think it’s quite the opposite, and in terms of non-ideologues, physician heal thyself.
Crooks wasn’t political. He didn’t post about politics. No one who knew him described him as political.
Tyler Robinson? Sophie/Nicholas Roske? Joshua Jain? Luigi Magione? Etc. Etc. Etc. — We have messages on shell casings, manifestos, social media posts, text messages, and interviews with acquaintances that all confirm motive, or even at a minimum a basic political leaning in the opposite direction of their target. Where is anything like that for Crooks?
You’re asserting he was looking up the distance of Trump appearances to his house for a different reason than doing the same for Biden — there’s nothing pro or anti Trump or Biden from Crooks that’s been credibly reported or discovered that he voiced prior to setting out to assassinate his target. Where’s anything as small as following a campaign account?
On the contrary, absent any of the usual evidence we have accompanying political violence, the response to Crooks reminds me of the immediate response to Jared Lee Loughner — that he shot Gabby Giffords was treated as evidence enough, alone, that his motivations were political. The press made the assertion, blamed a Sarah Palin mailer, tried to find anything that could link him to the right, broadly, and came up blank.
Give me the bare minimum that the press couldn’t on Loughner. As small as one high school classmate of Crooks’ that said he watched Hasan Piker Twitch streams. Anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link