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 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.
Say you are a green hat wearer, its a core part of your culture/identity/religious beliefs etc. I am am a blue hat wearer. I host a famous podcast where I spend several hours a week advocating that green hat wearers are scum of the earth.
"They are morally bankrupt", "We should return to times back when green hat wearers didn't exist", "something needs to be done to those green hat wearers before they harm us", "They are going to inflict violence on us", "Look at this unhinged take from a green-hatter", "look this politician is anti-green hat, he gets us, vote for him", "Green hatters are trying to replace us!", and through my wealth from this podcast I run super pacs, think tanks, and lobby politicians to make wearing green hats illegal.
Am I inflicting violence on green hatters? You'd say no. After all I have never directly advocated for violence. I've merely drummed up hate, which is not violence. Perfectly fine right? And if a few lone wolfs go off and commit "stochastic violence" against green hatters, unfortunate, but "have they tried not being green-hatters", "Wearing green hats is going to result in nonzero deaths..."
Maybe after a couple years I get enough political capital together and a president is elected who "really gets the problem with green-hatters" And this president starts passing laws that make life difficult for green-hatters, not illegal yet, just difficult. If they break the laws, well I get to point at "See I told you all this PoS green-hatters were criminal degenerates", "We need more laws to secure a green hat free future!"
I imagine you can see where this argument goes. At what point in your opinion have I directly coordinated violence against the green-hatters? Probably never right?
Feminine violence feels like an older concept. I am not directly doing the violence but I am coordinating it to be done, and when it is done, through my schemes and machinations, I will bear some culpability for that. I am a key part of what made the Green Hat Pogrom happen. Should the survivors of that pogrom, never be able to blame me? After all I didn't commit the violence, I was just "using my words" "speaking my piece" "Engaging in discourse".
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
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