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'm no fan of the SPLC, but... I don't see any contradiction between claiming to fight right-wing extremism and funding extremist informants.
If they broke laws while doing it, that's a different matter, but I'm not understanding the framing that they were hypocrites or something.
I would say it depends on how far they go. If they are funding leaders; if they are paying for people to attend right-wing rallies; etc., then at a certain point there's a contradiction IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
There's certainly a contradiction. It may not be illegal - after all, it's not illegal to be a colossal hypocrite - but it's certainly looks contradictory when you say you collect donations to fight those people and then give those money - and a lot of money, they mention hundreds of thousands of dollars there - to the same people. Call it "informant" or anything else, it looks like it is - that they very much prefer the cause they pretend to destroy actually prospers so that they could collect more donations and pretend to fight it forever.
Is there a reason a state should generally allow private actors to play "undercover informant"? Citizens aren't generally encouraged to start writing dossiers on each other even if they did say they were going to turn them over to law enforcement. Doubly so for not-even-illegal activities, some of which are constitutionally protected.
Seems at least arguably a road to privatized secret police, although I'd steelman the reverse by saying that Target should be allowed to have a loss-prevention department and take evidence to the real police. Open to other thoughts on the principles here, though.
You certainly can inform anybody on anything. Like, if you know something, you can tell that to somebody else. If you signed an NDA, the NDA owner could sue you for that, even in that case it will be a civil matter. I do not see any criminal statute that could stop you from disclosing anything you know to anybody, short of national security secrets and such. So yes, you can collect "dossiers" on other people, that's just information. You can not become "private police" unless you are also granted enforcement powers - i.e. powers to arrest, deprive of liberty, confiscate property, etc. Some activities are regulated e.g. via private investigator licenses, but frankly I don't see any principled reason to do so, it's more like dog grooming licenses - some people think it'll improve the quality of services to require people providing the services to jump through some hoops, but there's nothing special in activity itself. Some states don't even require that, it's not a matter of principle but more of how much regulation a particular jurisdiction wants to have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The SPLC is interesting because they don't have a real incentive to shut down the organizations they target. Police eventually want a big press conference with drugs or guns on the table and a bunch of arrests, that's how they demonstrate their efficacy. The SPLC has no authority to do any law enforcement, the best they can do is say "we helped" when law enforcement eventually does act. But they have a direct incentive to have more hate organizations to add to their hate map, more scary news headlines to use to raise money from their donor base, etc.
So if they are able to prove the SPLC funded some of these hate groups for decades and made no serious effort to shut them down, just farming them for content, that does start to look like a deceptive use of donor money. It requires more of a stretch compared to the other counts, but if they do get convicted, their reputation is ruined.
And indeed, making up ‘hate’ from essentially innocuous outside the mainstream organizations, which they then confirm with informants who are actually getting an answer of ‘sûre, buddy, why don’t you go play with someone else?’.
More options
Context Copy link
No, because they'll just claim it was a witch hunt against them by the Trump administration, and their donors will believe them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Same sort of issue as the FBI prodding along and composing a significant fraction of the Whitmer kidnapping plot, the line between fighting something and manufacturing something to fight gets patchy.
Paying informants to stay in an organization, continue rousing for it, and report back is fungible with just paying the organization to exist.
No? In that case you could point to specific actions which would not have happened without fed involvement. What’s the equivalent here?
I suspect we'll find out if this makes it as far as discovery! At this stage, the available information and how to interpret it relies too much on partisan bias to say with much confidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe on some scales. Was the USG paying the USSR to exist since some KGB guys were on the American payroll?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link