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 -
Where are your links? Inflammatory claims require evidence.
The Columbus Statue case has the summary here, punchline here.
Tesla vandal suspended one day here. Unpaid, so there's that, except for the part he was being paid when he did said keying.
The ICE (and ice) statute story is here, though I'll caveat that I'm skeptical Lang gets an actual trial, one way or the other.
The church service protestriot is the Don Lemon thing. It's hard to point to nonexistent state charges, but I can't find any. It's also worth spelling out that the only prosecutions have been federal, and that they've taken some pretty direct pushing given federal magistrate judges waffling on charges where they'd normally rubberstamp indictments on ham sandwiches.
The filming mosque thing is Sally Ness. It's kinda in a goofy space where Ness technically 'won' on the constitutional claims eventually, but didn't actually get any serious injunction or damages, and the state is just running a slightly different version of the same statute that the city was using before. State AG intervention is here, though given we're talking Keith Ellison 'defend unconstitutional thing' is less inflammatory claim and more day ending in y.
Anti-ICE checkpoints don't really have a good unifying story, but there's mainstream coverage, and none of them have the word 'arrest'.
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously links would be helpful, but all of these cases are well documented in the local news and can be found with a simple google search. In fact these events are so normal and that it's a stretch to even call the claims "inflammatory." I wouldn't be troublesome to claim "insane black man sets random passenger on fire on public transit" without links because such things have happened so many times already why would you even lie about it?
The point isn't that anyone is assuming the story(ies) are made up. The point is that bullet point at the top that people love to ignore:
In this case, there weren't even links. But if you cite a story about an insane black man setting a random passenger on fire on public transit, and your point is "Leftists have made it legal for insane black men to set people on fire," then yes, at the very least you need to post a link to the story so people can at least see if you might be leaving something out, and more importantly, "Here is a bad thing that happened and it's proof that my outgroup is very very bad, they literally made it legal to set people on fire!" is a crappy argument meant only to flash a boo light.
We all know (I am comfortable saying that despite it being "consensus building" because I do not believe anyone does not know) that people who want setting people on fire to literally be legal is a lizardman constant. "People want crime to be legal in Minnesota as long as it's for a leftist cause" is not how anyone, even on the left, would describe their position. ("They're lying!" you say, or "Their position is disingenuous and does not deserve charity." Too bad, that's not how things work here, you don't get to just assert that your enemies are all evil liars acting out of pure malice, whose stated motives do not even need to be considered.)
A more contextualized and steel-manned argument would be something like "Because of soft-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to deal with mentally ill homeless people, and racial sensitivity, it is now common for black criminals to get away with repeat offenses, even violent murders." Or "Leftists have institutional control and have repeatedly shown that they will apply the law in an unprincipled biased manner." That's at least a start at describing what you think is happening in a manner that sounds sane and would require your opponents to make a counter-argument that is more substantial than "No, I am not a crazy evil person who wants it to be legal for black men to set people on fire."
If you can't even be bothered to put in the minimal effort to assume that a non-batshit-insane counterargument exists (as the OP did not), then your post is bad and it's just outrage porn.
Hmm I think you're right, but in this case posting links certainly won't help OP's case in making the post better.
Because from what you're saying it seems like the lack of links is the least of OP's problems
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would argue that for claims that are highly specific and falsifiable, the need for evidence is pretty low, because the absence of any debunking in the replies is itself very strong evidence.
No, "Someone makes inflammatory claims, no one contradicts him, so they must be true" is not how it works.
Fair enough from a site rules standpoint, but I stand by this purely from a standpoint of "how confident can we be in these claims." Imagine that someone posts a claim that some celebrity got divorced, and it goes uncontradicted for a significant period of time on a site where people are active and diligent. At that point, I would be willing to bet a decent amount of money that the celebrity actually did get divorced. Whether the claim is inflammatory doesn't hugely change how much I would bet, although if anything I would bet more on an inflammatory claim since there would be greater incentive for people to challenge it if it were false.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link