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 am willing to distinguish a difference between fraud as a colloquial definition and fraud as a legal definition, and that this SPLC scumbaggery is "colloquial fraud" but not "legal fraud." I believe I've already attempted to point that out.
It will take a great deal of convincing and actual evidence to convince me this is any different than the Trump fraud case, other than one taking place in Alabama and one taking place in New York. He recorded money spent under the wrong heading! HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?
The law matters for the law.
The law does not matter for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. One hopes that they align often, but the law has a tendency to fall short to account for human fallibility and the variety of experiences, among other things.
My thoughts matter for this conversation regarding the SPLC being a bunch of hateful partisans committing bad behavior that is not necessarily illegal. That is separate from it being good, moral, or anything else.
I gotta say "novel legal theories" that leapfrog the need to prove an underlying felony does feel like corrupting a case. Anyways...
No, I do not want the legal system to be corrupt or unfair (any more than it already is by human nature). I do not assume that because the SPLC will likely win the case, that the law is corrupt. I am trying to distinguish between two different concepts of fraud and goodness, though I probably failed at making that sufficiently clear at the beginning of this exchange. Mea culpa.
What the SPLC did may be legal, it may not be fraud under the law, I still believe it to be bad behavior. Is this really so hard to understand? Is this distinction so impossible?
Abortion is legal. I think it's bad. I also think that there are situations where it is the least-worst option. I am unwilling to conflate "least-worst" with "actively good." Something being legal does not make it a good thing. Is this so difficult a concept?
More options
Context Copy link