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 -
Your main point could have been that "this is an amazing pasta maker!", and could be entirely correct, but no choice of sentence placement is going to get people to ignore any other inflammatory points you happen to make along the way. If you hate inaccuracy, callousness, and polarization, you have to be very careful not to drop a blood libel in the middle of your post; otherwise it doesn't come off as hate, just jealousy.
No, it wasn't. So many failures of theory-of-mind going on right now.
For me, too, to be fair. It now seems that my theory (that you think it should have been clear to the officer that the car hitting him posed no serious threat) was wrong, and instead your mistaken belief is that it's a requirement for self-defense that the threat be immediately clear? That would just get us back to my first SNL gag reference, days ago,
"I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Obviously suddenly brandishing a chocolate revolver will never be an clear threat, because it's not actually a threat, but a reasonable officer would construe it as a threat and would be justified in using deadly force to defend against it. Likewise, even if the driver of a vehicle wasn't gunning it hard enough to spin out her tires on ice, an arresting officer in the path of the vehicle is allowed to interpret the criminal's car suddenly accelerating into them as a grievous threat, and is not required to think "but what if I double check the tire angle" before it may become too late.
Nope. Goods crimes were obstructing justice, harassment, and vehicular assault, not terrorism. But I can't really directly respond to the administration, not with anything more serious than upvoting someone else's twitter response to a higher-but-still-rounds-to-the-same-number total. Trump never became a Motte poster. (Even if he did, I couldn't imagine him obeying the rules here well enough not to eat a permaban within a year.) If an administration called Good's actions "terrorism" here, I'd give them the same pushback and chance to correct that that you got for "murder", and the same downvotes to posts where they either failed to correct or repeated the libel.
I get that it feels unfair that you're being held to higher standards than the White House just because you're here and they aren't, but what's the alternative? If I said you couldn't meet standards higher than theirs I'd deserve a mod warning for such an egregious insult.
Holy shit that was good. I did not really know who Heather Lochlear was (beyond a vaguly famous name from before my time) but she killed it there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link