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 -
Devils Advocate:
Can't we apply this to other killings? Charlie Kirk was engaging in calls to coordinate state violence against his out group (ie running on political issues that would negatively effect the alphabet folks). He was destroying the fabric of our society for profit and fame. He technically is allowed to do that by the first amendment, but it is rules-lawyering. We as a nation should "just play dumb" when his outgroup coordinates violence directly against him in response, because influencers profiting on division and tribal polarization of our society is bad. Let the adult children face the consequences of their rhetoric.
"Technically was allowed" means "is very close to something which is disallowed". Calling for state violence is not very close to something which is disallowed. It's certainly not very close to something which is both disallowed and for which the proper response is to shoot you.
"Technically was allowed" is not the same as "allowed".
If you want to get into pedantic word-choice discussions I don't have the patience, interest, or inclination to join you. Speak plainly, make an argument on the content and we can have discussion. If not, your reputation is evidently of someone who abuses the report button on tribal issues so idk if its worth engaging with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In other words, would you say that Mr Coil's argument proves too much?
I'm going to need to read that and get back to you, 2013 Scott is wayy prior to my introduction to the Ratsphere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is this your devil's advocacy purposely hyperbolizing or do you believe this? Because it's certainly arguably both wild overstatement (the first part) and very presumptuously ascribing motive. I frankly don't see how your comparison here works. Unless you're trolling, in which case, well played I guess.
I fundamentally believe there are a class of influencers that sell tribal turmoil: Hatred of the out-group, Us-vs-them, Dehumanization, Crazy-highlighting. They create communities/followers around these manufactured identities, belief systems, narratives. In doing so they raise the political heat level, it sows division, and division sells, hatred sells, tribal fighting appeals to the basest of our human desires. Doing it torches the commons. It burns the social fabric of a society.
I have a coworker with a PhD in the cognitive science of radicalization. We talk about this topic at length and we both see it. Is it hyperbole? I don't think so. Its insidious, slow. Kirk isn't solely the perpetrator. He is part of an entire ecosystem of tribal influences, left and right. Describing motive is more nebulous, do I think Kirk and his ilk are mustache twirling villains? Absolutely not! Their incentives are the same as everyone else: personal enrichment, wealth, fame, status. But what sells better? Moderate takes, restrained discourse? Or provocative knuckle dragging, ape is stronk! content? Idk how anyone on the internet can fail to see that? People follow incentives, and incentives to exploit hard-wired human nature are undoubtedly the most profitable.
EDIT: Kulak is a very clear Motte-based example of this.
I just typed out a lengthy reply then lost it by clumsy typing.
The gist is I think Kirk was, in fact, a good example of the restrained discourse you describe (if not moderate takes.) Candace Owens more neatly fits into the system you describe. And I still wouldn't advocate or nod at her murder.
I also suspect personally that Kirk was motivated by genuine conviction. My previous reply was better, apologies, cynicism vs naïveté, etc.
Edit bc of your edit: Kulak and Kirk are leagues apart.
I'm not advocating for nor nodding at their murder. I'm pointing out what I see as a very human reaction to heated tribal politics that I think Kirk contributed to.
Yeah, Candace Owens, Fuentes, Kulak are definitely more extreme than Kirk was, but its also unclear if they had his reach. I don't really think he was all that moderate. To me this is a class, Kirk could absolutely be on the lower end of the extremity scale but he's still in that class. I think that entire class of individuals is a problem.
I think that was part of his brand. Genuine conviction doesn't make you worth 12 million at 30y. You don't chance into that kind of wealth. History is ripe with people of genuine conviction who advocated for political change, are immortalized for it, and still died poor.
You have a reasonable view here, but my original dispute (apart from how we may classify Kirk on some spectrum of shit-stirring or snakeoislmanship) is with your comparison of the Pretti killing to Kirk's murder. I think there is a fundamental difference in the two that makes any comparison specious. Namely that while Pretti was armed, waded on purpose into an escalating situation, and, if the recent video of him kicking the SUV is any indication, was gunning (cough) for a fight. Kirk didn't do any of that. He was--at least verbally--inflammatory, yes, and did not shirk from an (oral) conflict, but did not advocate violence (to my knowledge), and was squarely in the zone of "words can never hurt me" for his critics, one of whom nevertheless shot him dead.
My original disagreement is not in the details of the situation, they are absolutely distinct and incomparable at that level. My viewpoint is wholly on the symbolic or semantic level. In that what do they represent?
Kirk et al: No actual violence, no calls to violence directly. But coordination of violence through the intended effect of policy. Application of the Authority/State's MoV. I classify this as Mean Girl behavior, Feminine Violence, Exploiting the letter of the Law
Pretti et al: Physical violence, direct in your face aggression, not coordinating violence for the future, no subterfuge, honest, masculine violence.
Should these really be treated so distinct? We condemn masculine violence but does that mean we should allow feminine violence? Humans are social creatures. We can innately recognize when social violence is being enacted against us. Allowing for the only response to feminine violence to be more feminine violence just lets the best at it thrive. Balance is required.
Words are not sacrosanct. And the ability to use feminine violence is not either. Just because people who love to use words as their weapons scream and rage and call you all manner of names when you take them away doesn't mean you should stop, or that the comparison is not apt. And sometimes the only answer to feminine violence is masculine violence. That is natural law.
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
More options
Context Copy link
No, because Kirk as you describe him is lot real - it’s a media lie.
Who you’re replying to is … I mean, almost verbatim what the video shows.
So one is real and one is fictional.
I think that should have meaning.
Considering my media diet is pretty sparse (predominately here) and I know of Kirk/Crowder/Walsh from my MRA/Debate-Bro days, I find the insinuation that I am believing some sort of mainstream media lie pretty unbelievable. You are welcome to believe what you want of course.
If you want to do the effort of changing my belief, I am open to some evidence. My current stance is that he was a debate bro influencer who stirred tribal tensions and hate towards the outgroup for profit, while advocating for a return to traditional Christian conservative values. Should give you clear goal posts.
‘ I believe in Heaven and Hell - that should give you clear goal posts ‘
No thank you. You’re welcome to hold beliefs that are incorrect.
That's what I assumed, being asked to prove that something is a media lie is too much effort. It's much easier to sit on the couch and throw arguments in from the peanut gallery.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you can find a clip of Charlie Kirk spitting on a woke snowflake and then roundhouse kicking her car causing enough damage that it is no longer street legal, then I will agree with this take.
The urge to create this in Sora is strong...
This is what I am talking about. In the OPs metaphor, Kirk is analogous those middle-school mean girls who go spread rumors, sick the teachers on you, maliciously turn people against you. All without actually personally inflicting violence on you. Their motives are to get fame, popularity, social cred, friends, all very banal human things. Are you the sort of person that when someone fights back violently, for being bullied, you punish them because those mean girls weren't physically violent? Or are you the adult that "plays dumb" because those mean girls need to face the consequences of their social violence?
If you are the former, then a lot of people on the right complain about this zero-tolerance fighting problem and how it punishes people for standing up for themselves. If you are the later then the Kirk situations is just that scaled up with far deadlier consequences.
Even if this were true, "sticks and stones" is much more typical advice on dealing with meangirls than "it's OK if you want to shoot them in the neck"?
Probably because violence against mean girls has been so restricted that once something pops past the threshold it is insanely more violent than it should be. This is an argument that some earlier low level of violence probably would have prevented later lethal violence.
It is hilariously a very feminine argument that mean girls should just be ignored. You ever see the videos of female privilege to mouth off colliding with someone who doesn't recognize it? Maybe we really do live in a longhouse.
You are actually advocating for violence as a response to mean words?
Fascinating -- I do agree that men tend to be politer to each other because violence is always on the table -- but historically the accepted response to unacceptable speech is a challenge to violence, not skipping straight to the party.
If the dude had challenged Kirk to pistols at dawn in defence of his boygirl-friend's honour that would be fine with me -- but sneaking around to get yourself a sucker-punch opportunity is not in fact a masculine activity.
A challenge to violence is definitely the preferred approach but it is not always going to happen. Sometimes you just get punched. I'd argue that skipping straight to violence is because a challenge to violence is not legal and would be giving away the opportunity.
I'm openly unsure how to square this honor cultures being absolutely shit places to live.
As a government policy? Absolutely not. As a social reality? Yes with caveats.
When is the last time you just got punched? Even in a barfight something like "you want a piece of me?" is usually de rigueur IME, and "stepping outside" is a real thing...
Notably this... actually is still pretty legal in most jurisdictions; "mutual combat" is also a real thing, and even in places where the courts would technically not accept it, a fight in which both participants were on board is highly likely to be ignored by authorities so long as it doesn't get too far out of hand.
Agreed, but to anyone reading this...
Do it on grass or something given half a chance. There is a reason why "A gets in a bar fight with B, knocks B out, B falls to the concrete/asphalt, gets a brain injury and dies" is a classic manslaughter/second degree murder hypothetical.
For the same reason, if an informal and extralegal "lesson" is being taught - and I do not advocate unlawful conduct - don't hit 'em in the head, they need it to absorb the lesson.
More options
Context Copy link
I have deliberately never gotten into a bar fight as a post-college adult, violence and alcohol with strangers is a level of risk I am not interested it. So last time would be at a frat party in college when i was a bit more risk oriented. A lot more often in high school, where my verbally slow autistic self preferred to use violence.
Does Kirk strike you as the type to accept an offer of mutual combat? Or do you think he would call security and go back to "mouthing off"? I might be biased in thinking he is too much of a wordcell type to accept. I think mutual combat probably breaks down somewhere in the social dynamic between average joes and rich influencers.
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
And the result of following that advice was letting the mean girls run everything.
And wokies are mean girls in power
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kirk peacefully went and spoke with people in order to change their minds and promote his message.
You're equating that to someone interfering with federal officers while armed, multiple times, while shouting, "assault me."
It would be laughable if there were any humor in it.
There's humor in everything, you just need to look for it.
I am not claiming Kirk violently assaulted people, and I never have. There might be some sort of masculine honor in that at least. Instead, he advocated for the state to go inflict violence on people, he advocated for a return to laws and norms that would physically hurt his out group, he engaged in running political campaigns to do that. He knowingly kept the temperature of political discourse high and cultivated a following out of these efforts that provided him with a very very lavish lifestyle/worth. And he was effective in doing so. Apparently his out-group can predict the future better than you can, they felt this future violence, real or imagined. And they decided to act, to do something about it.
Act like a mean-girl, and maybe someone is going to violently attack you for it. Profit off of stirring tribal hate and division and maybe society should "Turn a blind eye" when some of that hate and violence finds you.
You started all this by saying “Devil’s Advocate”, so do you really believe it was fair to kill Kirk or is this still just a provocation to prove a point? Because it is sounding like genuine belief
It is an application of the original argument applied to a topic I've been thinking about. "Fair" is very load bearing and I am unsure if I believe it was "fair" to kill Kirk and it definitely wasn't morally right.
The idea I've been thinking about: mean-girl behavior in adult politics is not sacrosanct. Free Speech is wholly a more pure thing and tarnishing it by association with the afore mentioned behavior degrades it. Exploitation of words by mean girls to coordinate social/political violence does not make them untouchable just because they aren't directly engaging in violence.
The ramification of said concept are still being thought through.
I still don’t understand what mean girl behavior is other than policies you disagree with. I could easily frame any leftist figure as engaging in equally mean girl behaviors from my POV. Obviously ii understand your broader point, if he were literally advocating for the government to start throwing trannies into gas chambers then I agree, the distinction between this and doing violence directly would arguably be quite thin, but I don’t think he was doing this any more than pro-immigration activists are doing White genocide to me, even if I disagree with then
Mean Girl behavior: Feminine violence? Like I said I'm still fermenting the concept. It's not just policies I disagree with, I'm not a lefty and probably agreed with Kirk on things, but I still think he was engaging in a sort of Feminine violence. This "I'm not violating the letter of the law" concept of just being rhetorically intelligent enough to imply the violence he wanted to inflict through policy applied by the state, not him. Feminine violence is never directly violent, it applies that violence socially, or through an authoritative figure.
I can easily frame much of the left as engaging in feminine violence. I think it is super applicable. It grates on me, I hate it. I hate it so much I voted for Trump in 24. Doesn't mean I don't hate in when the right does it too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You keep saying that Kirk advocated for using state violence. Yeah, no fucking duh, that's called politics. You're making it out to be some sort of nefarious scheme when that's what all politics is about. That's why there are trannys in the first place, because of state violence threatening people.
You are not serious, and engagement with you is not in good faith.
I am and I'm sorry you feel that way.
So you understand what it feels like for activists to coordinate state violence against you and people like you then? You also understand the violent urge to respond to that? Yet you can't understand how your mirror, some lefty feels?
Not all politics is about abrogating negative rights of individuals via the state. Only tribal politics around radicalization and extremism.
Tell me, how advocating for relaxing zoning laws advocating for state violence? How does it remove your negative, natural law rights?
Yes I understand, but I don't go around killing people over it because I'm not deranged. I understand better than you because I'm not pretending that this state of affairs is strange or unusual or anything other than working as intended.
All politics is about collective action through monopoly on violence. Always, every time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn’t this a generalized argument against any civil discourse? If that guy wins, my team loses, therefore pew pew. Should we all just go gangs of New York style and hit the streets with shillelaghs and cleavers instead?
We are having civil discourse right now, have I threatened your negative rights? Have I sought to remove them or advocated for their removal via first or known second order effects?
Pure conflict theory, extremely tribal, us-vs-them mentality. Politics doesn't require you to take from other people. If your view point was correct why don't we see one side genociding the other after every election? Afterall if all politics is existential then why even have an election if you can't afford to lose.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems like it a generalized argument against civil discourse only if all politics can be interpreted as advocating for state violence against or in favor of X... which seems like quite a stretch.
That's not a stretch at all.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One was gunned down in completely cold blood whilst the other was deliberately trying to make an already hectic and confusing environment yet more stressful essentially entirely for the purpose of generating videos of bad activities by making them more likely.
"One was killed advocating and coordinating political action to remove the individual liberty and bodily autonomy of minorities while the other was executed in cold blood trying save a woman who was pepper sprayed and protect his neighbors from a violent authoritarian regime"
The inability to exercise some cognitive empathy or minimally some epistemic humility is a sign of being a tribal partisan.
There is no possible argument for the Charlie Kirk killing being in anything but cold blood with an abundance of forethought. Even if you are maximally pushing the 'he was doing harm through espousing his ideology', you have to acknowledge that it was a planned assassination from somebody who sat down and rationally thought through the plan. I don't think the Pretti killing was necessarily good or justified, but it was a spur of the moment decision from somebody in an inherently stressful and chaotic situation.
I'm not disputing the details of a premeditated assassination vs a spur of the moment decision.
I'm arguing the meta level lens of the metaphor around turning a blind eye to immature child-like behavior in adults when it has deadly consequences and how it applies to both sides evenly in ways that gore both sides sacred cows/martyrs.
But discourse about government isn’t child-like behavior. Go around kicking SUVs is child like behavior.
You seem to be making a category error.
I, at least in this thread, am not really discussing government behavior. Government is blunt instrument and this is a problem that requires a scalpel. I have no desire to put a loaded gun on the government's table for use in restricting speech.
Absolutely, Pretti/Anti-ICE movement acts like a child, deliberately attempting to toe the provocation line and claim injustice when they get punch back. WhiningCoil's argument is that we should should ignore it to teach the left a lesson. I think this idea can be applied to other behavior as well, that he might really hate. Like Kirk's mean-girl like behavior.
It is a meta-argument around people trying to abuse the rules-as-written but wanting to avoid the natural consequences of people recognizing that as defection and responding/punishing it.
You described both actions as child like. I’m saying as a society we’ve decided one is child like (ie kicking cars and spitting on people) and the other (political speech) is not child like. So you have a category error.
That assumes I agree with your framing of how society has decided these or that society is even right. I don't recognize your authority to define that framing. Considering a section of society definitely reacted to the later as a "Well he FAFO-ed" or "I don't think his death was great but maybe he should have been less of a hateful ass". (real IRL conversations with real IRL leftists) I'd contest that society really has decided as your framing is correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So Charlie Kirk is not entitled to his beliefs due to them potentially being against the absolute maximum freedoms for other people, or is simply not allowed to advocate for his beliefs in public if it may result in any modification of society that resembles that?
To be fair, Charlie Kirk said Biden was a "corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America." He was generally pretty decent to people and was willing to agree to disagree, but there's evidence of him occasionally making a controversial comment that would concern moderates and really piss the left off.
There are no direct calls for violence, but I'm pretty sure he made a few comments that kept the political temperature nice and high.
The point here is that we see extralegal justifications from both sides. I still think the Pretti shooting wasn't justified, but the extralegal justification for his shooting gets more arguable when a video of him behaving like a leftist agitator surfaces. People hate this type of person, especially here.
More options
Context Copy link
He can advocate for what ever he wants. If his beliefs are around restricting the negative rights of others then he can also face the consequences of what happens when people don't want their rights restricted.
The government should not be in the business of restricting speech, but people are allowed to respond to coordination of violence with violence. To do otherwise is just letting the fantasy of rabbinically-inclined and wordcells to replace reality
Please let us all know how you feel about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. After all, he was fighting against the government trying to restrict his right to keep and bear arms.
I'm pro-ish... I'm not sure this is the gotcha you think it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes but any elaboration at all of your concept means that essentially any speech that could be considered objectionable and/or catalyzing a group could be responded to via assassination.
Would you be equally comfortable with pro-choice advocates being assassinated due to directly advocating for something that could be equivocated to murder?
I'll admit its still cooking as a concept. I used to be much more of a free speech maximalist. I need to work on defining the boundaries a bit better. But to me this is a concept that I think is more accepted that people give credit for.
If you are at a bar and start mouthing off towards someone, they might enforce reality on you, through a punch to the face. I think people have gotten too used to the idea of words as a sacred inviolable medium and naturally that allows the verbally intelligent to exploit that to get away with things. Sometime you need to punch that person so they understand there is consequences to their rhetoric. Seems pretty basic. People have seem to have forgotten that and it has escalated to a point it is no longer just a punch.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That sounds an awful lot like you can murder anyone you want as long as they're a political enemy whose agenda can be framed in terms of 'rights' however nebulously. (All of them can.)
I am reminded of the activist who told me with tears in his eyes that throwing a David Bowie themed party constituted violence against the victims of sexual assault.
Moreover are you prepared to accept that, since you are clearly advocating for violence against those you disapprove of, it is entirely valid to gun down you yourself on the same principle?
With regards to the anti-ICE movement, it is very clearly an organised militia and no sane country could or should permit such behaviour to continue.
Well actually negative rights is a pretty defined concept. Coordinating violence is almost always used to remove or restrict NRs from people.
What negative rights is this David Bowie themed party removing from SA victims?
The 2nd amendment very clearly is designed, in part, for an organized militia, so this is about an unamerican statement as it comes. If anything the anti-ICE movement should avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights and have armed protestors protecting their right to protest. Obnoxious as they are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Says the "radical centrist" who doesn't think we are in a civil war. Yeah man, sometimes if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way, you just get assassinated in cold blood. Whatever. I'm a centrist.
And this is how they lie. Launder their radicalism in under the radar as "just being normal".
No.
I did not follow the guy, but looking at his Wikipedia page, he advocated the following:
I have worded the above very carefully, to reflect stuff he literally said (as opposed to things that could be reasonably inferred, like "I believe marriage is one man, one woman" -> ban gay marriage)
The mechanism is not "abstract". He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (EDIT: positive) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc
This logic cuts both ways, e.g. the trans activist's words attempt to deprive him of the right to live in a cisheteronormative society. But this logic is sound (both ways)
I'm not really going anywhere with this, because this sort of thinking basically ends with endless conflict. I can't think of a better practical option than just tabooing this sort of inference. But I do want to point out, for the sake of epistemic clarity, that it is not as simple as you claim.
More options
Context Copy link
Notice the "Radical" in radical centrist, I ain't laundering shit. But nice stupid word game.
I like most motteposters am heterodox as hell.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, we are currently in a civil war. Both sides have internally consistent moral claims for exterminating the other. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can make more productive choices.
Obviously it's a matter of semantics, but I would say it's more of an intifada than a war. In the sense that one side is attempting to get its way by means of sustained and systematic lawbreaking, violence, and the like. If both sides go that route, then yeah, it's a war.
More options
Context Copy link
The "one of us" post you link complains about the left using "lies" (your word for their exaggeration / selective reporting of facts). But then you go and say things like "we are in a civil war" which is so obviously not true. Maybe we're on the path towards one, but even that is super debatable (and regularly debated here).
I just want you to know that I can't take you seriously when you hypocritically call other people out for stupid-language-tactics and then do your own stupid-language-tactics. Again, I'm sure you have lots of justifications for this tactic (many of which are valid!), but as a tactic for achieving your goal of getting me on your side, your rhetoric is failing.
I might prove to be wrong (it happens, but rarely). I am not lying. I sincerely believe that from the very depths of my being. But radical truths often sound like inflammatory rhetoric, so I don't blame you.
I'm not claiming you are wrong or lying. I am claiming you are ineffective.
If you are correct, then a more effective communication style (i.e. more consistent/less inflammatory) will probably get you the results you want faster. At least with me and fellow mottizens if not the general public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would you find it surprising to know that only 20% of Democrats believe Kirk's killing was justified? https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/justifying-murder/
Or that only 40% of Republicans believe Pretti's killing was justified? https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53972-what-americans-think-about-immigration-enforcement-and-the-death-of-alex-pretti
Not really; there's a lot of room for society-poisoning callousness outside of a strict justified, on both sides.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds like as a radical centrist my productive choice would the extermination of everyone that's a knuckle dragging ape who thinks we are in a civil war and can't get along.
Just looked out my window, I currently don't see a war going on. My left and right wing coworkers seem to get along just fine, as do my friends of various political persuasions. The only people who seem to think we are at war are the terminally online, mentally ill folks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link