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 -
You're taking Charlie Kirk and suggesting he was this kind of anti hatter, instead of just a rather plainspoken and direct public speaker. He was known for having open mic conversations at college campuses. I never heard him suggest "something needs to be done" to anyone, and that you have apparently sealed him in this type of box suggests to me that @Mihow in his earlier dismissals of your points as the product of media lies was probably closer to accurate than I suspected.
I don't suspect we're going to make much progress in this discussion, but I will say that I respectfully disagree with your assumptions and conclusions, in particular about Kirk. Fomenting violence is of course not to be encouraged, but then I don't think Kirk did that or intended that--I certainly never had that impression in any case. Maybe he did in videos I've never seen.
I'd agree that bureaucratic and systematic violence (of say Holocaust variety) begins with manipulation of thoughts. But again I think you're reaching in the examples you're using (if it's Kirk you're referencing.)
I’m referencing the class of kirk-like influencers, i don’t think kirk himself has said any or all of the things in this thought experiment. This is purely about how words/speech lead to violence. And that style of coordination isn’t rightly some hallowed thing that everyone around here seems to think should be protected
As i said, its not about the particular details of the kirk case, its about the meta-level symbols/semantics. If you need to sub kirk out for Alex Jones, Nick Feuntes, Hasan Alabi, etc go ahead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link