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 -
I mean, I'm not proposing that the Red Triber partisans will win, get serious concessions, or even survive. Just that a lot of people will die. From my perspective, it's pessimism. I don't like the 'Blue Tribe rolls over the country with no serious resistance' situation, not least of all that the Blue Tribe is clearly incapable of maintaining vital infrastructure literally anywhere they've taken over. But my proposal involves mainstreaming political assassination, spree attacks and indirect warfare on civilians based on arbitrary and often-wrong signals, immediate direct attacks on that same infrastructure, and serious damage to large-scale logistics even faster and quite possibly in my lifetime.
There's a strong argument here, where so many of the various 'mysteriously unsolvable' televisions crimes, the bizarre willingness to let criminal or outright terrorist organizations coordinate publicly until they can overwhelm coincidentally-nonresponsive police, and the cratering homicide closure rates are really reflections of those industries being unwilling and uninterested in actually catching criminals, and I think you're absolutely right there. There's really strong nonpublic evidence for it! You can go full Yarvin and say that even the drug gangs are just politics by other means and no one in power wants to solve or prevent crimes if it'll make the , or you can stick with hradzka and notice that actually solving problems would get in the way of diverting tons of money toward (often toward supporting the violence these orgs claim to be fighting) while pretending to solve problems, whatever works.
Yes, when those orgs were faced with a Red Tribe political activist group committing crimes or 'crimes', they took out all the stops, and then a couple glimpses in a grainy camera
and some parallel constructionis enough to track someone down and toss them in jail for years.But there's a separate argument, regardless of whether these orgs could solve crimes that they're ignoring now, whether they could catch attackers who are actually and seriously planning around them. So far, Red Tribe political activists have often signed their names on manifestos nailed to doors, and their actual dedicated attackers have had the sort of opsec normally held by Scooby Doo villains. The omnipresent surveillance state is kinda shit. Yes, we can't know it's full capabilities and we can't judge by the overt crimes it doesn't solve because it doesn't want to, but
And there's an even-more damning one about whether those orgs could prevent attackers. Because the US military had a real trouble there just in the specific context of green-on-blue attacks. You can't win that way if the opponent still has the will to fight, but you can do a lot of damage.
Do I think one in a hundred will take the stupid option? Maybe.
But I think this question depends on implied other options. Both Option 1 and Option 2 look terrible if your alternative is staying home and doing nothing and everything just being boring. But Jake Gardner was literally minding his business.
Sorry for the typos. Basically, I'm proposing near-complete jury nullification of several well-liked (and sometimes even well-intended!) federal civil rights act bits, and common knowledge that any such nullification will happen, with the only exceptions being aggressive enforcement against Blue Tribe orgs that are stuck exposing themselves to liability in Red States. Red Tribers might already see that as a plus, given the various CRA abuses. I'm less happy when it happens to a FACE Act case involving baseball bats, but I won't be able to argue against it.
The specifics of the scenario don't really matter: the core just requires undeniable evidence of sexual assault of a young minor, the minor fleeing to/being kidnapped by the minor's biological father, and federal officials kidnapping the minor again to return them to the same location they were molested, likely to the same person that molested them. The trans custody stuff with a possibly-desisted FTM just seem particularly easy for each tribe to form its own media fragments, since no bigwig Red Triber is going to believe the defenses of each step, and no bigwig Blue Triber is going to admit that there's a problem in what's happening.
Remember the Comet Pizza guy? Because as touched in the head as he was, charging in with a rifle to stop a pedophilic conspiracy that didn't exist, he was limited by two factors: he thought he was being a hero, and he thought revealing 'the conspiracy' would get everyone on his side. Maybe in a world where the entire left wing had spent the previous two years joking about how it was better to be a sex slave than go to Catholic school, he wouldn't have done anything at all, or maybe just have tried the same 'reveal to everyone' approach.
But there's another option.
Sure. And a wide majority of people will probably keep that, even in my nightmares. Most people didn't even know about Ruby Ridge.
More options
Context Copy link