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 -
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.
One could say politics is entirely about taking from other people. If it wasn't largely zero sum then no negotiation would be required, coordination would be emergent.
The reason why it's not always pew pew is that oftentimes not getting what you want is preferable to dying for it.
More options
Context Copy link
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