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'd be happy to double down on "he was destroying the fabric of our society", in that he was a major player in the campaign to delegitimise the 2020 election by telling blatant lies to his gullible co-partisans. I think the full adoption of his political programme (which was not moderate) would have done a lot of damage to the fabric of American society, but most people with strong, genuine political views think that about the other side. But I think the claim that Charlie Kirk was motivated by profit and fame is unlikely - there are a lot of pure grifters in politics, and they don't behave like Kirk.
The simplest explanation for Kirk's behaviour is that he genuinely believed that doing the work of politics (talking to voters, organising coalitions, training cadres etc.) was important and pro-social. I can snark about Kirk being the kind of Christian who thought that Republican electoral success was more important than the commandment against bearing false witness, but his faith was clearly sincere and was clearly driving his politics in a pro-social direction as well.
The world would be a better place if there was more room in politics for men like Charlie Kirk. The problem with Kirk's politics is that to make room for more men like Charlie Kirk, you need fewer men like Donald Trump.
More options
Context Copy link