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 -
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.
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?
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
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.
Yes, but the problem is that anything can be defined as a negative right given sufficient desire. In this case it was the right not to be deeply harmed and re-traumatised by the rape culture inherent in celebrating the life of a man who once slept with an underage groupie (yes, that was the literal argument). Trans people have the right not to be genocided by people using the wrong pronoun. Etc. etc.
Fair's fair, you got me. I'm a Brit who regards the American bill of rights as being broadly an insane document drafted by some intelligent but rather blinkered revolutionaries who could not conceive of an America 100/200/300/400 years old. It worked sort of okay for ruling a small number of extremely patriotic, highly confederated Anglo Americans but survived beyond that through a combination of unusual geography and very selective reading and interpretation, which is the Federal Government imposes limits on speech every day, why it interferes in commerce, etc.
None of which is a refutation of your point, of course. I do note that said militia would be fairly unlikely to support 2nd amendment rights as pursued by say the NRA.
To my current eternal despair. Who knows maybe the silver lining will be that the left realizes the need for strong 2nd Amendment rights to protect against "Nazi Authoritarian Governments". I'm not holding my breadth. But the point of principles is to hold them regardless of costs. Otherwise they aren't really principles are they?
You have no negative right to restrict someone else. You are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you. I know this isn't your argument and that tortured lefties make stupid arguments but they get away with it because no one shuts them down.
Your position is internally consistent. I don’t think I agree - the costs in death and internal disorder seem concrete to me while the benefits seem more theoretical - but that’s by the by.
I did shut it down, at some personal cost. But you cannot prove the assertion that ‘you are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you’ to somebody who claims that refusing to change the theme after their complaint is now a positive choice to exclude them.
It’s power against power, vote against vote, and sadly you don’t always have the power or win the vote.
Yes unfortunately some people are incapable of not being narcissists. I am increasingly on the opinion that universal suffrage was a mistake. A section of the populous will never be anything more than knuckle dragging apes.
I have no solution to that at this time. Other than recognizing that perfect is the enemy of good. And intelligent people can understand the concept of a negative right and the ironclad boundary between that and a positive right.
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
More options
Context Copy link