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 -
It's all kicking off in Merseyside. Big protest against the UK government's ongoing policy of housing groups of unknown and unvetted asylum claimants who have illegally crossed the channel and are attempting to stay here, in hotels, at the taxpayer's expense. The inciting incident being passed around social media appears to be this. Reports include that a police van has been torched as attendees accuse police of "protecting the nonces".
As you might guess, it is unlikely that these events will be described as "fiery, but mostly peaceful". Several publications such as the Guardian have already gone for calling all in attendance far-right. Accusations are flying that protesters were bussed in from elsewhere because the famously bloc-left voting Merseyside would never do this. Some are remarking that this was organised by people passing out flyers in the days beforehand, and that this should make it a premeditated riot. Opinions are split exactly as you'd expect along culture war lines.
I can only see this sort of thing getting hotter and hotter as time goes on. There's a large contingent of the country who quite simply don't want the migrants here, and reports like the tweet above turn off even more. But the state -- controlled by people calling themselves the Conservative Party -- seems to have no interest in closing the floodgates (they make noise, but no more than that). No solution is in sight, as far as those concerned can see. So I really don't see how this is to be defused at all.
All the difference in the world between those two adages!
Indeed, the BBC hasn't mentioned the pedophilia video in the article you linked. It would be very interesting if the rest of the world just saw the results of the 'fiery, but mostly peaceful' protests in the US but heard nothing about what the origin of those events was. The BBC gave us the opinion of a counter-protestor, Clare Mosley, founder of Care4Calais. I imagine Oswald rolling in his grave at relativistic speeds, though there's probably no relation. We also got calls for calm from the local MP who wants everyone to wait until police investigate the alleged incident. No more detail is given than that. There's no reference to children, sexual harassment or anything, just an alleged incident circulating on social media.
This reminds me of something I wrote earlier about media bias and disinformation in the context of that Hanania article. Disinformation can be anything you want it to be. RT for instance picks out facts that favor Russian interests, finds people with opinions that favor Russian interests, provides interpretations of facts that favor Russian interests. You can do a great deal without lying. In this case, I'm confident that the BBC is not and will not provide 'an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programs'. But that's just my opinion. Who defines 'appropriately wide' or 'due weight'?
I also want to thank those who coded the website, my comment was saved even while I left the page to search through my comment history. This is a nice feature!
Is she the sus one who keeps sleeping with the migrant men under her care, or something? The name rings familiar but I can't place why I've heard it before.
You're totally right: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3924505/married-calais-jungle-charity-boss-who-romped-with-toyboy-migrant-fears-for-her-life-after-refugee-lover-tried-to-burn-down-her-hq/
Contrary to what I thought, toyboy isn't a misspelled boytoy but has almost identical meaning. This makes me somewhat unhappy etymologically, though I suppose this is far too late to ask for consistency in our language.
She sure knows how to pick 'em!
I can picture this being a perfect scissor statement for extreme rightists. Is this swarthy race-mixing Muslim based for wanting to murder a white refugee-facilitator (after conning her out of money) and trying to burn down their facilities? Alas, I'd imagine they'd default to saying 'kill them both'.
From another article: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2611408/married-calais-jungle-charity-boss-beds-toyboy-migrant-and-sets-up-love-nest-with-refugee-after-boasting-of-zero-tolerance-sex-policy/
That is a lot worse than what I vaguely recalled. Christ alive.
My opinion is that she's stupid and misguided and will have learned nothing from all this, a danger to herself and others by advocating for more of these people.
He obviously deserves the harshest punishment conceivable. Crimes committed by people who are here illegally to lean on our charity should be punished more harshly than the same crime committed by a native, IMO.
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