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 -
Saving, protecting or building should only come after the enemy is defeated though, through vitriol and aggression. Otherwise they might destroy what you were building and protecting.
Ah yes, once the final victory has been won and the spectre of the enemy ideology is banished forever from the world. Once every actual enemy has been killed and every potential enemy lobotomized and all information pertaining to the enemy ideology has been scoured.
You know, it would be so inconvenient if the enemy were made of the same stuff as us, from the same peoples and families, and a straightforward victory weren't possible. Good thing the enemy is easily identifiable and irredeemable monsters who are completely separate from us.
Seriously though, what would a defeat of the enemy look like, to you?
I can name some examples now that you asked. For one, violent criminal “refugees” from the MENA region getting arrested and deported. Not being “ordered to be deported”, which is very obviously a BS measure intended to deceive NPCs, but getting deported i.e. physically removed. Or cutting aid to Ukraine. Or not suppressing the fact that COVID “vaccines” have caused a massive number of early deaths. Should any of those actually happen, I’d be saying that roughly 30% of the work is done.
Most of them have in fact made themselves easily visually identifiable already, through public statements and also forms of body modification typical of leftist 'spiteful mutants' (h/t to the Jolly Heretic).
Do you have solid sources backing up this claim?
Why are you asking that?
What do you mean WHY am I asking? If there's solid evidence, I want to see it. If getting more boosters will risk killing me, it's important to know that. If there isn't evidence you're just bullshitting, aren't you?
It's just one example I listed and is thus largely irrelevant to my overall point. It's not the important part. As far as I know, it's true, and getting more boosters is certainly a bad idea. Otherwise I don't care. If you have an ideological motivation for asking this question, then please state it plainly.
You don't get to argue like this. We're supposed to have some standards on this forum.
If it's irrelevant, you shouldn't have included it. So which is it?
If you know it to be true - how do you know that? What evidence did you see? If getting boosters is 'certainly' a bad idea, again where's the evidence? Why do you think what you think?
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
More options
Context Copy link