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 -
As I said before:
Of the 53% who voted for him, you have perhaps 1% (e.g. lizardman level) who expect him to engage in a purge of Republicans. The other 52% voted for him because they did not actually believe that he would engage in any murders.
I think that there is a tiny but loud minority on either side of the CW who honestly thinks political murder is good idea. Actually, I think the risk is a bit hard to judge.
On the one hand, most of the time, nothing ever happens. On the other hand, widespread murder of civilians, especially women and children, is mostly not an election winner, and the people who might enact such things will not say so openly on the campaign trail.[^1]
If you are claiming that 53% of voters are willingly voting for a candidate who wants to murder you, you are imitating the professional victims who claim the same about Trump voters. "I am Hispanic/LGBTQ*!@#, and it is common knowledge that Trump wants to kill me for that. So all the people who voted for him are fine with me getting killed." It is pathetic when they do it, and it is just as pathetic when you do it.
--
[^1]: The best studied example of people voting for a party who then killed a lot of citizens is probably the rise of the NSDAP. They did not campaign on gassing any Jewish kids. Of the 37% percent who voted for them in free elections in 1932, I don't think all or even most were pro murdering their Jewish neighbors. Perhaps a third of the 1932 NSDAP voters would have been enthusiastic about the Shoa. Another third might have been indifferent. The last third might have been horrified. "When Hitler called them a parasite race, I did not think he was literal. I thought it was just empty words, and at most he would deport the Jews to Madagascar. I only voted for him because I felt he was the only one who could stop a commie takeover / I wanted to teach the other parties a lesson! I thought the police would stop him from murdering anyone!" Of course, they also lacked the lessons learns from the rise of the Nazis.
I think that there are a few different risk factors to consider.
(1) dehumanizing language. This is required, but not sufficient. It will mostly not be unambiguous, "And therefore we should kill all the Jews, including their kids." Instead, it will leave it to the listener to connect the dots or not. "The Jews are a parasite sickening the body of the German nation." If someone says "killing Nazis is good", does he mean "killing right wing extremists who are violently opposed to democracy is good" or "killing anyone who is half of a standard deviation to my right is good"? It gets even more ambiguous if you go towards symbols. A Confederate flag could mean anything from "I want to go back to the days when the only Blacks we suffered to live were slaves" to an apolitical endorsement of the South. Likewise, the motive of a Klansman getting strangled by a Confederate flag could mean anything from "I violently oppose the reintroduction of slavery" to "any white person with a Confederate bumper sticker is an irredeemable racist who should be summarily executed". If someone describes illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers, that could be the rhetoric of someone who plans to round them up and murder them at the earliest convenience, or someone who is mostly interested to bait the left into pearl-clutching about irresponsible language (which is certainly is!).
(2) nonpublic language is not especially relevant, when its interpretation is ambiguous. When someone writes in his diary how he is looking forward to rounding up and shooting all his opponents, that is concerning. If a 'Young' Republican group posts Hitler memes, that does not automatically mean that they want to bring back Auschwitz. If Jay Jones makes a joke about shooting some Republican (plus his kids), that does not mean he plans a Soviet-style purge. (Either still calls into question the suitability for public office of the posters, though.)
(3) Empirically (arguably), traditional movements are less of a danger than revolutionary ones. Traditional conservatives like GWB (bless his black little heart) may invent new American past-times like torturing foreigners, but they can mostly be relied upon to not radically change their society. "Round up all the people from the other party, declare martial law" is an idea foreign to Obama or W, for whom the struggle between R and D has been going on for a long time, but also follows certain rules both sides agree on. Beware of the outsiders who do not respect the mos maiorum. I would also argue that for the most part, Social Justice Progressivism is in fact not very revolutionary, methods-wise. The dominant ideology among 40yo woman rarely is. While there are certainly murderous proponents, I don't think they are coordinating with the big political groups (e.g. the Democrats). (The same feels also true about MAGA). If you get killed while SJP is in power, it is likely by some rioting criminal whom the SJ people did not want to oppose (because he is part of a minority and that would be racist or something) instead of a death squad directly orchestrated by them.
(4) Institutions, especially ones which serve as checks on power. While Trump might dream of getting crowned King of the US and subsequently persecute all of the people who make fun of him for lèse-majesté, the danger of that seems slim because the US has a strong institutional culture against such things. Toothless as Congress is for the most part, even his allies there would not agree to that. And while the SCOTUS is generally very friendly towards Trump, they are also not afraid of unamiously denying his claims on occasion. Likewise, the US military is very democracy-aligned (at least as far as the US is concerned). They have a long streak of not attempting any coups, and I don't see them willing to break that streak. Compare and contrast with the military in Weimar. Voting for Hitler in the US is thus a lot less bad than voting for him in Weimar, because in the US he will be much more constrained in what he can do. (Of course, I recommend neither).
Have you read Jay Jones’s texts? I don’t think complaining, “This guy actually said he wanted to see me and mine murdered, we have the receipts, he doesn’t deny it, and yet people elected him to office anyway,” is the same as complaining, “MSNBC called this guy a fascist, the Nazis were fascists, the Nazis murdered people, ergo this guy wants to murder people, and yet people elected him to office anyway.” In the one case, we are relying on what the guy actually said. In the other, we have to make several massive leaps to arrive at that objection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link