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 -
Kidnapping suggests illegal. Where is the illegality? Now you are going to say that lefties can define words to mean other than commonly defined terms.
You mod for much less absurd things.
That's a fair question. Address it to the person you are arguing with.
Oh, I see. You don't want to argue with him. You just want us to shut him up.
You are failing to articulate a broader principle than "This poster annoys me, make him stop." But sure, if it soothes you to believe it's about protecting lefties, you go right ahead and tell yourself that.
This is particularly amusing given the guff we're taking elsewhere.
I am sure your opinion of what other absurd things I have modded for is equally reasonable and principled.
First, you are being an ass. I didn’t ask you to mod for an opinion I disliked. I’m pointing out the other poster made an inflammatory factual claim that is obviously false but you won’t do shit about it.
Second, you stated it would be reasonable to mod if the other poster claimed ICE was killing a bunch of people. Well, if I made that claim and then said “when I use the word kill, I mean arrest” you would rightfully see that as fucking bullshit.
Here, there is settled definition of the word kidnap. You have google. Read it. It is the unlawful taking of a person. There is zero evidence ICE is routinely kidnapping people. The other poster made a factually absurd claim with zero evidence and your defense of it is “the other poster gets to define commonly used words to mean something opposite to their common usage without saying he or her are doing such a thing.”
That would be deadly to the site. It is principled to argue against it.
Buddy, I wish I could grant myself as much latitude as I grant you.
Yes, you did. You do not insist on this scrupulous adherence to legal definitions for arguments you agree with. You want him modded because he annoys you and makes arguments that anger you.
That's correct. We won't do shit about someone saying something that may or may not be factual.
The factual nature of the claim is the point you should be arguing. We do not adjudicate truth values of claims made by posters.
Yes, because that's a specious, inapplicable comparison. Someone who uses "kidnap" referring to arrests they consider to be immoral and illegitimate (but are legal under the law) may be legally inaccurate but everyone understands what the meaning and intent is, and if you think "That's stupid, that's not kidnapping!" you are allowed to rebut with that. But you don't want to rebut, you just want us to tell him he's not allowed to use words in a way that grinds your gears. No, we will not do that.
You are pretending (I use that word intentionally) that it's the same thing as saying "kill" to mean "arrest." But doing that would be legitimately confusing. No one would understand you actually meant "arrest." When @LiberalRetvrn says "Kidnapping" you know exactly what he means. You are not confused, and he is not trying to confuse you. You disagree with how he's using the term. Fine.
Now let it go, you have nothing else to say on this that will be anything other than (more) annoying.
I'm not asking for the post to be modded, but I strongly agree with @zeke5123a's argument here (and disagree with yours). "Kidnap" is an actual verifiable crime with specific elements. Using it explicitly and repeatedly to describe the actions of a real, actual (whether you like them or not) law enforcement agency engaged in their real, actual work of law enforcement within their permitted scope is, at a minimum, maximally antagonistic and nearly definitionally an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence. Asking that it not be used to generically describe what ICE does in the extraordinarily vast majority of cases is not asking you to adjudicate the truth of claims, it's asking you to apply the rule against being antagonistic and uncharitable and hew to the rules of this place (reasoned discourse tuned for light instead of heat). Unless the argument is that ICE is somehow not statutorily properly constituted or has not properly had powers of immigration enforcement delegated to them, "kidnapped" is pure heat and zero light.
Would you say that the word "invasion" and its derivations should be modded similarly?
I'd certainly be willing to entertain that argument, depending on the context - it's a less precise word so i'd probably (perhaps due to my legal-adjacent background) be more permissive around it, but I could definitely envision cases where it's so over-the-top that it would be worth at least a "hey, please knock it off, that's completely disconnected from reality" kind of response. In this particular case, at least if what we're talking about is the generic ICE apprehension, "kidnap" just seems like a boo-word for an agency that people happen to dislike but which is (despite some people's fervent beliefs) an actual law enforcement with agency with actual law enforcement agency powers enforcing actual immigration laws. If you want to argue against the current actual state of ICE or immigration law, no problem - but using "kidnap" to describe the modal immigration enforcement action is effectively the same as saying the police want to "kidnap" those suspected of felonies.
Invasion is a precise word within numerous federal laws which regulate the ability of the government to suspend civil rights or use military forces domestically. Which I think is precisely what people who use the term "invasion" to refer to migrant labor are advocating. Does that change your feelings about how the use of the term "invasion" should be regulated?
I think once we start regulating aggressive use of terms it either ends in stilted language as we regulate ordinary speech out of existence, or it ends in one side getting hugboxed to avoid hurting their feelings.
As above, I think that's fair, and that was the example I had in mind. FWIW, with respect to voluntary migrants coming, I wouldn't use the phrase myself or think it accurate. I probably also wouldn't object to the same kind of gentle "hey, that's more heat than light, please don't" in response. It seems a bit of a closer case that "ICE is kidnapping us" to me, but it's the same kind of thing.
I do disagree that it's a hugbox kind of issue, though - I think they're both good examples of inflammatory language that obscures discussion of the actual scope of the underlying issues.
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
More options
Context Copy link