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 -
Inflammatory is perception so I can't say it's not inflammatory, I can say people who think it's inflammatory are wrong.
There aren't substantive arguments to be made here. It's not an argument to say "They don't think he means it," I'd apply this generally, but it is objectively false to take that angle in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and (1) the glee of leftists on social media and (2) the utterly unapologetic media coverage, culminating in Jimmy Kimmel blood libeling the right and keeping his job.
There are exactly two possible conclusions from Jones winning his election.
On point 1, we have the following justifications.
(A): Those of the constituency who didn't know the man they voted for wished death on the child of a state nobody; too ignorant to make decisions on the future.
(B): Those of the constituency who thought he wasn't serious, see: Kirk, an inexcusable naivety; too foolish to make necessary decisions on the future.
(C): Those of the constituency who liked what he said. There are only two further steps on the ratchet from Jones' remarks, I have frequently explained here how it's not actually time for action, this is, those who have no problem with him wishing horror on a state nobody, psychopaths; this group should be put in prison. The current step on the ratchet is enough for the DOJ to three-felonies-a-day Jones; the next step, "Won't someone rid me of these meddlesome children" if ignored would be cause to dismantle the organization backing such a figure, as the last step is war.
On point 2, the government is currently guilty of fraud in 100% of elections where it cannot prove itself free of fraud. The people are under no obligation to prove a crime committed by the government; the government is obligated to prove it hasn't committed a crime. By philosophy and by precedent, the government has no claim to a right against self-incrimination and the adverse inference may be exercised. The inability to prove itself free of fraud may be concluded as definitive evidence of fraud. We have the ability to have ballots with established and sufficiently anonymized provenance, our continued failure to implement such a system must only be because it would impede fraud.
And I'll say also, a fair reading of my original post would be understood as anti-inflammatory. No, it's not that 1,791,589 Virginians are a mix of inexcusable fools and psychopaths, it's that the machine stole the election, and in fact the vast majority of dems had a problem with Jones' remarks.
You don't get to say what he said. It is truly that simple, everything less than disenfranchisement or fraud is rationalizing. Tribalism? Yeah, radicalize the reds even further, great plan. "Economy" He was running for state AG. State AG. The position in the top 5 of the 100% of offices it disqualifies him from holding.
Yes, inflammatory is perception. My perception, as the mod who makes these decisions, is that claiming an election was "obviously fraud" is inflammatory. An example of an "inflammatory" statement is a highly-charged partisan statement that the other party is certainly not going to agree with, which claiming that an election was "obviously fraud" obviously is.
I am not making a judgment as to whether or not what you said was true. Maybe the election was fraudulent. Maybe it wasn't. You're free to argue that.
You are not prohibited from making inflammatory statements, like claiming that an election was fraud, or even "obviously" fraud.
What you are prohibited from doing is making an assertion like that and not providing sufficient evidence or reasoning to back up the assertion.
Assumptions that "this couldn't possibly happen because it doesn't fit my model of how the world works" are not sufficient evidence or reasoning, though the expanded version you posted above would probably have been sufficient to avoid being dinged for a bald inflammatory assertion. "I think this election was obviously fraud because here's why I cannot believe it could have been otherwise" is still inflammatory, but it is backed by why you believe that. "I think this election was obviously fraud because duh!" is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link