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 -
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.
Eh, there's plenty of people, even semi-organized groups, that share the fears of being genocided and that fantasize about the Boogaloo, there were even lone wolves that actually killed people. What you don't get is the sort of "no one is in favor of political assasinations, Chud, but teehee isn't it great that someone rid us of that turbulent priest" reactions that you could see on the left.
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