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 -
More political violence
From Tim Pool:
One might think back to oft made historical analogs like Weimar Germany, and see the steady escalation of violence between communists and anti-communists and proclaim Weimerica to be just like that. But these acts of violence seem so... Aimless? Random? Poorly thought out? I mean, the degree of distortion that drives one to shoot at Tim Pool. I don't get it. Even the excuses that Charlie Kirk was a fascist theocracy enabler that would genocide the trans felt far fetched. How do you justify the glee of seeing Tim Pool murdered?
If the official narrative is to be believed, a lot of these acts of political violence are coming from ideologically ambiguous social media addicts. Be that the killer of Charlie Kirk, the Trump shooters, the attacks on ICE agents and facilities and more. Gone are the days of a regimented left/right brawl in the streets like we got around 2017. Or a good old cops(presence optional) and robbers BLM riot. To that extent, I think a lot of people have completely lost sight of the media backdrop of peoples lives on both the left and right.
For context, Candace Owens is talking about global conspiracies and the involvement of TPUSA in the killing of Charlie. This has been ongoing for weeks, and she averages around 1.5 million views per show. That's including ridiculously high live numbers no one else is coming close to. At the same time the biggest mainstream internet personalities on the right have been cozy-ing up to Nick Fuentes. With Steven Crowder now joining the fray of Tucker Carlson and many others, giving him a long and cordial interview.
On the other side, the largest streamer on the left, Hasan Piker, along with many others, have made it a routine to skirt as close as they can around calls to violence. And sometimes not bothering at all. With the government starting to ask questions after the murder of Charlie on the topic of radicalization.
The Wild West days of the internet are seemingly back. With Hitler memes on Instagram instead of 4Chan, Qanon conspiracies having their own show on Youtube all whilst the leftist revolution is being streamed live to millions on Twitch.
Centrist minded people like Tim Pool like to talk about the pendulum swinging back and forth. But inherent to that analogy is the idea that there is a fixed point where the pendulum will stop before swinging back each time. But it seems like that's not the case. The pendulum can swing back and forth, but also faster and farther. And with the antifa being completely unwilling to engage in discourse or compromise, and the right being completely inept and unable to stop their radicalization and acts of violence, 'faster and farther' seems to be where we are going.
At this point being openly MAGA is inviting being a target . they are not even trying to hide it
More options
Context Copy link
Weimar Germany had a much larger pool of people who were recent veterans with life-long, hands on experience with interacting with physical reality. The average internet communist today has likely never touched a hammer. They expect it to be like a video game on Games Journalist difficulty.
Compare to the difference in outcome when the attacker was not the virulently online, irony-poisoned trans gooner, but his raised-by-grass-touchers boyfriend.
More options
Context Copy link
For about ten years now, leftists have been on a crusade against misinformation. It was vitally important that misinformation be at least countered, if not outright removed, because it would lead to societally harmful outcomes like racism, misogyny, transphobia, and other bigotries. If it can be countered with the truth, then we can finally create Heaven on Earth; no more bigotry, because everyone was educated out of it and gave it up on their own recognizance.
As the years have gone by, this has proven to be totally untrue. It's a very useful philosophy to take for political rallying purposes, at least until it runs into something that's actually true. The Hunter Biden laptop story could be taken down because it was misinformation. Oops, it was real. It's just misinformation that black people commit more crime, you're taking some examples and characterizing tons of people with them. No, you can't use those FBI statistics to back it up, that's bad too. Women can be just as good as men at being a police officer or an infantryperson; again, grating to leftists when you use statistics. Hateful rhetoric about transgender people is supposed to be baseless, which is why Jesse Singal is the most blocked person on Bluesky.
I think the commonality that I'm trying to demonstrate is that the real crime here isn't about being hateful or not being based in truth. It's simply about being opposed to what they want to do. There is no actual way to push back without seriously pissing people off. Everything has already been tried, and it doesn't matter how respectful you're being. That's why there is no detectable difference in the hatred that leftists have between Charlie Kirk and someone like Nick Fuentes. The actual rhetoric doesn't matter, just that they're opposed.
While I'm on this topic: Charlie Kirk discourse is still insanity-inducing to me even though it's been 3 months now since he died. The average redditor will say everything nasty that's possible about him, they'll say that he was hateful and said disgusting things on a regular basis, that he made the country worse, that his words were violence against people, that he increased the amount of people ready to commit violence against minorities, that he needed to shut up and get off the campus, that the world is now better because he is dead. But to make it better, they'll say that murder is wrong, so they disagreed with his murder. Well, redditor, you did not convince me at all. You gave me several absolutely fantastic reasons to kill people like Charlie Kirk, but just one really weak reason to not do it (because murder is bad) for reasons that you didn't list out. Do you really believe that murder is bad? Why? Explain it to me, in your own words, fellow American.
No one that isn't already on the right wing understands just how radicalizing that entire affair was. It was easy to believe that yes, they'd ban you from everywhere for having beliefs that 50% of the country hold, and yes, they'd slam you as a bigot and a racist, but that it was all just words. No matter how much I explain it to people, they want to bring up like, 5 quotes and call them hate speech and justify why people hated him so much. And they reject that this hatred would ever make someone want to shoot someone else, even though that's the entire reason why rhetoric attacking trans people, gay people, black people, women, or immigrants was bad in the first place. So they never believed in the concept of stochastic terrorism in the first place, because they never shut their radical friends down when they cry out for more blood. It's all so awful, and there's nothing you can do about it, except cut off all those former friends who dismiss everything you have to say simply because of who you are or who they suspect you to be.
A long time ago I heard someone observe that progressive messaging makes a lot more sense if, whenever you read "misinformation", you mentally substitute "blasphemy".
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't call a fundamental axiom of morality, indeed, one that has been regarded by the Abrahamic faiths as an explicit divine commandment for over three thousand years, a weak reason. And the tacked-on "Why?" at the end seems particularly odd to me - most people's reply to "why is murder wrong?" will be a confused "it just is"; they don't hold murder to be bad for instrumental reasons, but to be inherently unethical. For a majority of Westerners, that is the most important reason not to kill someone, and it is self-sufficient. "Why is murder wrong?" cashes out as "Why is badness bad?".
More broadly, what do you expect someone who disagreed totally about Kirk's politics to say, here? Do you really expect each comment to go on a lengthy digression about the underpinnings of moral philosophy? I can entertain the idea that in such a case (ie "a man you consider horribly evil has been murdered, but you genuinely don't want to come across as supporting murder"), the most decorous, moral thing to do is simply to keep silent and not opine on the event at all. But by definition, left-wing redditors who take that high road are not going to show up in the comment threads you describe. This leaves only the ones who feel compelled to speak at all, and I don't think you can fairly or realistically expect them to say anything else than what they do.
They're all natural things for someone who hated Charlie Kirk to say, yes. The problem is more the extent that they hated him, so much that they internally are rapturous that he is dead. This is not simple disagreement here. I'd expect something like the redditor response to John McCain's death in that case, where they acknowledged that they disagreed with him entirely, but still really respected him and are sad that he is dead. Not so, here. Here, they really did hate the shit out of him, hated his rotten, stinking guts. For a moderate conservative voice, that's absolutely unacceptable. They would want me dead, too, if I was effective enough at expressing myself convincingly to millions of people. The feeling does not go both ways. I can't really think of any left-leaning people that I utterly despise in the same way, and I can think of many that I like and respect, such as Ana Kasparian, Jesse Singal, or many personal or online acquaintances that are more tepidly liberal because they just watch TV occasionally or have other liberal friends.
Edit: I'd also add that to say that you're glad that someone's dead and the world is a better place without him has a lot of other added meanings when that person was assassinated by someone who feels similar to how you do. If you can't prevent yourself from saying those things after an assassination by someone who thinks like yourself, then yes, you do actually need to say why murdering is bad, because you just encouraged your friends to murder someone.
The only reason "redditors" liked John McCain was that he was anti-Trump - I don't believe redditors are real people (in many cases they aren't, especially the ones posting from Eglin AFB). John McCain was a terrible human being and lent his support to pointless wars that lead to disastrous consequences while sticking his snout in the trough and slurping up a bunch of the profits made as a result. He served in a pointless, failed war of aggression as part of a military that committed truly awful and evil deeds (evil might be a bit hyperbolic, but when I look at the children of Agent Orange I find it hard to find other words). He was substantially worse than Charlie Kirk who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't actively support or fight any wars as odious as the Vietnam war and wasn't a beneficiary of corporate corruption.
I think that you're looking at different sections of the populace. There are absolutely figures on the right that I can respect - Ron Paul and Thomas Massie are two that come to mind for me. But I'm not really representative of the circles on the left that are calling for total republican death, in the same way you aren't representative of the parts of the right that talk about the day of the rope with bated breath. I don't think there's really anything to gain from comparing the worst segments of either side of politics - we can compare the power levels of Patrick Crusius and Tyler Robinson until the cows come home, but I don't think there's much useful information to be gained from doing so.
I don't believe that this endorsement of violence is a partisan phenomenon - there are increasing levels of radicalisation on both sides of politics because the normal, traditional methods of deciding these disputes is hopelessly gridlocked and dysfunctional. Politics as usual are simply unable to address the increasingly intractable problems faced by the average person, and political violence is on the rise because desperate people see no other way to actually get their problems addressed. Political violence of every flavour is going to be a growth industry for as long as the mechanisms of regular politics remain as worthless and nonfunctional as they are today.
More options
Context Copy link
The "still really respected him" part seems off. I'm not talking about "simple disagreement"! Sometimes you really do just think a guy sucks. That's fine! That's nothing new! Most folks have people they hate to some degree - and I'd say even more have people they have zero respect for even if they don't actively hate them. That doesn't mean they all support wanton murder. Having nothing nice to say about someone (beyond "he was a human being and as such had a certain inalienable dignity" which is so general as to be meaningless) is perfectly normal, and we shouldn't normalize asking people to lie about this in the event of something unfortunate befalling that someone, on pain of being assumed to be pro-murder. That's just a demand for large-scale hypocrisy.
(Which is precisely how I've always felt about mealy-mouthed statements eulogizing people you were calling anti-American mass-murdering fascist commie crooks ten years ago, to rapturous applause from your base, as having somehow been great respectable statesmen all along Even If You Had Your Disagreements™. If Trump says something nice and respectable about Biden when Biden croaks, I will not believe he means a word of it, but that doesn't mean I think Trump wants Biden killed.)
Though again, I can get behind the idea that if you have nothing nice to say, you should simply say nothing.
But again, what if they genuinely do just believe murder is bad in and of itself, for no more elaborate reasons than feeling "Thou shalt not kill" is carved upon their conscience in letters of gold that no circumstances can alter? What do you expect someone like that to say?
In most cases, the same people would celebrate killing someone if a certain threshold of evil is attained. Ask them if, had Japan not attacked first, the US should have gotten involved in WW2 in Europe (so endorsing killing not in self-defense but in defense of others or of principles). Or if Operation Valkyrie was righteous. It's not that it would be wrong of them to say yes in either or all cases, it's that if you couple it, the idea that some level of evil needs to be opposed by killing if necessary, with a tendancy to frame every political opposition (even the tamest) as maximally evil, you're constantly creating the justification for murder.
I think most people draw a difference between organized killing in war, and murder. Mark that I repeatedly said "murder", except when directly quoting the Sixth Commandment - not "killing".
Fun fact, the proper translation of the Sixth Commandment is "thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." As in, thou shalt not kill anyone outside the accepted bounds of the legal system or war.
More options
Context Copy link
This is why I also brought up Operation Valkyrie. The plan was murdering Hitler, not killing him in battle, or not even as an enemy at war, but as officers whom he ostensibly trusted. Yet few would think the officers involved were wrong to attempt it. Only extreme pacifists, which the vast majority of people outside of monasteries aren't, would object to murdering Litterally Hitler. Which is a problem when you also call half of your fellow citizens Litterally Hitler.
I’ve thought about this a lot. I still think the left has not come to terms with their rhetoric inspiring violence against the current president and a major supporter of his.
Unlike hand wavy ‘Bush is stupid’ stuff, the rhetoric became ‘save our democracy’ and ‘defeat fascism’. Wrt to the Charlie Kirk event, it’s just undeniable that highly online trans groups perpetuate rhetoric that is about genocide (not to mention there’s another intersection where the idea is supporting trans politics stop people from killing themselves). I think it’s fair to say that, along the lines in this conversation where violence becomes acceptable given a certain level of ‘evil’, persuading people that a political faction is evil will result in violence.
I really don’t think there’s an equivalent on the right. The idea is preserving order through continuity, in principle. There’s no appetite for revolution through targeted violence - while people like Hasan and Taylor Lorenz look lovingly at gruesome events meant to send a message. In no sense do I want someone to do anything to Hasan Piker - if he wants to be a sinoboo and praise violence / terrorist groups, that’s a choice he’ll probably regret in time. But at most I’d like to see him face career or legal repercussions, as detestable as I find him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Having nothing nice to say about someone is normal. Having nothing nice to say about 100% of your current political opposition is not normal.
During a highly publicized assassination, it's very conspicuous to have the "c'mon guys, political assassinations are seriously fucked up" voice missing. Which it was in every corner of the internet. Yes, I do expect more than that.
No, it wasn't missing. Not everywhere. I checked the SpaceBattles thread and a decent chunk of the posts express this. And to be clear, SB got purged of right-wingers a few years back - even I faced a trilemma of [leave]/[stop talking about politics]/[get permabanned] and picked the first horn - so this is your milquetoast liberals (not the hardcore ideologue liberals, like me) and non-radical progressives.
Are there places where it's missing? Yes. Are there way, way too many people on that side howling for more conservative blood? Also yes (including in that thread, many of them whacked by the mods for it). Is every corner of the SJ-purged Internet composed entirely of such bloodthirsty maniacs? No.
More options
Context Copy link
I found it distasteful to see edgy left wing people embrace that. I’m really hoping this has come to a close, between the United Healthcare thing, the Trump attempted assasination, and Charlie Kirk. There was a LOT of wink wink nudge nudge, subtle endorsements of these tactics I saw online when they happened.
It’s especially concerning when things like this spread like a social contagion but I’m hopeful that this period of historical political violence has come to a close. I really don’t want to see the troubles pt 2 and a justified militarization of society.
Indeed, I created this account after an extended period of lurking/inactivity not in response to Charlie Kirk's death but in response to the efforts of others to down play it.
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
The Wild West is not back, the internet is mostly caged. This is just the anarcho-tyranny of the ruling class.
Remember, to these people Tim Pool is not a "centrist" but the hard right edge of literal Nazis murdering black and brown bodies on the daily. The hyperventilation some years back about "stochastic terrorism" was projection.
How is Tim Pool a centrist? He might have been one back in 2019, but now he’s pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-Ukraine and has right-wing guests on his podcast. Even Fox News calls him right-wing.
Tim Pool is a fence sitter of the worst variety. He's controlled opposition, his job is to sit there and drive the speed limit and slurp as much normies as possible so they don't embrace much harsher right wing politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't being pro Israel the epitome of being a centrist. The mainstream of both parties are fanatically pro Israel, the radical base of both parties strongly dislike Israel.
My impression is that the mainstream left is anti-Israel in the States, but I'm hardly an expert here.
The Democrats on Israel are a lot like the Republicans on Israel: there is considerable anti-Israel sentiment in the younger parts of the base, but almost none of that actually filters up to the politicians in office. So you have your token three congressmen who criticize Israel, and all the others move in lockstep support, quietly or loudly. There’s a huge generation split, so boomers and Gen X of both left and right are much more likely to be pro-Israel, or at least moderate in their criticism.
More options
Context Copy link
The voters maybe, at least the under-40s, but the blue party is tightly controlled by pro-Israel donors, which is why Kamala quite literally sunk her campaign over the matter. I'm confident she'd have won the election if she'd just given some pro-Palestine statements and made some empty girlboss threats to reign in Israeli behavior (which she could easily backtrack on after being elected. No need to keep campaign promises to anyone who isn't a large donor).
More options
Context Copy link
The centrist opinion seems like it should just be that both Israel and Palestine suck. Normies seem like they wouldn't have much of an opinion either way and just default to pro-Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on how you define 'mainstream'. The DNC old guard is very pro Israel. The black democrats and the old school establishment dems are generally pro Israel. It is true that anti-Israel stances are less fringe than in the GOP, however.
More options
Context Copy link
In practice, it seems most non-muslim leftish figures are more worried about stoking "antisemitism" than they are anti-Israel.
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