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 -
Then I would question why they don't judge both deaths by the same standard.
Fine. I don't see what that has to do with it.
Because it's extremely hard to apply a logically consistent standard to both deaths that results in justifying CK's but not RG's.
Let's try one. How about the self-defense law of the United States? Well, CK's would obviously be unjustified because he was not an imminent threat to anybody. Meanwhile, people are debating the merits of RG's under self-defense so someone could make a plausible argument that hers was unjustified.
Then how about we say the decedent should have made better decisions? Call this the Better Decisions standard. That is, CK's was justified because (some argue) he held inflammatory beliefs about minorities like trans people and/or a belief that the Second Amendment is necessary, and holding such beliefs is a poor decision. Well, that justifies RG's as well since she also made many bad decisions (e.g. deliberately antagonizing ICE) that resulted in her death, so Better Decisions isn't going to work either.
Absent a standard that can apply to both cases this way, what is one to make of someone who mixes standards? Let's say they apply Better Decisions to CK's but self-defense law to RG's (and say that RG's was not justified under self-defense). I could address their arguments about CK's and RG's deaths separately, but I think a more efficient way to address both arguments is to just ask why they don't apply the Better Decisions standard to RG's as well. After all, I think it's best to apply consistent standards everywhere unless you have a very good reason not to, as doing so shows that you are impartial and unbiased. Is there an important difference between them that I'm not aware of?
Of course, besides the fact that CK was red tribe and RG was blue tribe, but in the assumption of good faith we assume that one wouldn't justify CK's death merely for being on Team Red.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link