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 -
You may not like it, but unless the Supreme Court finds Minnesota’s Disorderly Conduct, Harassment, or Obstruction laws are in violation of the Constitution, Minnesota’s laws on those three fronts stand and are enforceable as such.
Fortunately, for leftist protestors who harass, obstruct, and create disorderly conduct—behaviors such as exhibited by the "mostly peaceful" protestors we saw in OP’s videos—they have many lawyers out there who are sympathetic and will carry water for their causes, including chief prosecutors who may or may not decide to prosecute.
And, to the extent the SC addressed “this” directly, it explicitly highlighted that behaviors, including but not limited to, those that fall under disorderly conduct or “fighting words” can still be punished:
Sounds awfully familiar with regard to the videos OP posted, as well as other videos of anti-ICE agitation. The Court’s main hangup was the word “interrupt” amidst the phrase:
The Court’s opinion specifically reinforced it was upheld that Colten’s conduct in Colten v. Kentucky did not fall under protected speech for disorderly conduct concerns:
Again, sounds awfully familiar with regard to the videos OP posted, as well as other videos of anti-ICE agitation.
Don’t know if you have a specific Court Opinion in mind with regard to purported ‘Nazis” and “Holocaust Survivors.” I did take a look for a bit as to what may constitute WBC activity nearby a military funeral and which incurred court rulings.
Insofar as you’d like to evoke something like WBC protesting near military funerals—only one popped up, the infamous case of Snyder v. Phelps. Where the WBC activists, not that these were prerequisites for anything:
1. Were 1,000 Feet Away
2. Did not disrupt the funeral’s activity
3. Ceased their activities prior to funeral
4. Were not seen or heard from the funeral site
5. Were not hindering the actions of LEO
It’s safe to say you don’t do your homework before commenting. It’s also safe to Notice your repeated attempts at minimizing what anti-ICE people were doing despite video evidence.
More options
Context Copy link