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 -
Trivially, you did so by throwing out irrelevant implications of antisemitism, conspiracy theory, qanon-ish schizophrenia, so on. It's not necessary for your claim, it's not supported by any of your evidence or by the motivations of your interlocutors, and it's bait, and I'm grabbing it and yanking. Either make the arguments in full, or don't bother.
And I'm pointing out that there's more information pointing to his legitimacy. He did not just joke or 'joke' about killing his political opponents. He 'joked' or joked about the innocent children of his political opponents getting murdered because he believed it would achieve a political goal. This is not a minor distinction, not does it exist outside of the realm of his elected workplace. And no one on the Blue Side of the aisle has bent over backwards to concede Trump (or Bush, or Youngkin, or Abbot, or yada yada) out of a deep alignment to small-d democratic supremacy.
I don't particularly care about who cast the first stone, but I would like to hear you spell out within a five-year-block when you think calling normal Republicans fascists became common discourse among the left-wing. Or, when that inevitably needs a thousand caveats, to say when it was first used to dehumanizing Red Tribe normies.
Would you like to demonstrate what Jay Jones has done, otherwise? Because if all it takes to "demonstrated" "character, compassion, and vision" is to xerox DNC pablum, and then to normalize violence, you're just saying the same thing with extra steps.
I hoped that they'd pressure the man to resign -- a nearly costless or even beneficial option, when Spanberger would appoint his replacement, who coincidentally would not also have to dodge serious questions about fraud on a court to get past his punishment for driving recklessly. That's not happening.
I expected they'd do exactly what they did. I considered it a joke that'd they do anything else, that's how predictable this end result was. It doesn't matter. I couldn't even get the people who wrote thousands of lines and drew thick lines in the sand here, to write in secret their opposition. It's not even new, but no one cares.
Behold, the grownups in the room.
We know it's possible for people to turn on politicians, even at far greater expense, and with far less clear proof of bad behavior. We've seen it in recent years! It's happened even when the scandal was fake. It's just not something that ever realed, both ways, and now it doesn't either direction, and the only defense you can bring is that one of the latest pebbles in the avalanche belonged to the other party.
Yes! And worse, it's all trivial bullshit that's within the range of conventional politics, not just in the sense that the most moderate Republican would have made these 'stakes' a decade ago, but even federal Democrats! For all everyone makes huge paeans for moderation and responsible governance and de-escalation, if the revealed preferences for any and all of those places is literally any political disagreement ever overcomes all that dehumanizing rhetoric and toleration of violence against the innocent, FCFromSSC is right, WhiningCoil is right, and SteveKirk is right.
I'd like them to be wrong! But that's not going to happen because you carefully play words games.
More options
Context Copy link