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 -
Yesssss, one of us, one of us.
Pretti was the obnoxious child running up to much bigger kids, putting his finger 0.0000001mm away from their faces, and chanting "I'm not touching you" until the bigger kid punched him in the face. After which point, having accomplished precisely what he set out to do, Pretti cried that he was hit and demanded that the bigger kid be punished because technically he didn't deserve to be punched by the rules as he understands them1. And yes, technically we don't want to encourage children to punch other, smaller, more obnoxious children. But sometimes, as a parent, you have to play dumb. "I didn't see anything, just learn to get along."
We, as a nation, need to play dumb. Let however many of these adult children face consequences (even unfair ones) for the first time in their entire lives. I wasn't there, and neither were you. I didn't see anything. Now go learn to get along with ICE.
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.
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.
You're now wading into an area where the word violence loses its meaning. What you're calling "feminine violence" is what I'd call rhetoric. It's explicitly not violent by definition. Sure it can be catty, can wound, etc. (if not physically) but it isn't violence. That's a newish, very late 20th century/early 21st century take on the term. I reject that definition of violence wholesale. I mean call it something else.
So then you're just talking about what constitutes what we used to call "fightin' words." And you're suggesting here that a gunshot to the throat is somehow fitting? I think you're really stretching here.
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