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 -
What kind of left-wing person do you think comes here and would argue something other than "all rape should be investigated and the culprit found"?
I wouldn't expect to see it here, but advocacy for black men raping white women is not a completely foreign concept in the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Cleaver
Soul on Ice (1968)
"In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto "for practice" and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was "an insurrectionary act".[4] When he began writing Soul on Ice, he unequivocally renounced rape and all his previous reasoning about it.[1][2]"
And before we dismiss this as the ravings of a criminal psychopath (which Clever most assuredly was), "Soul on Ice" was on the bookshelf of my not-particularly-radical Midwestern parents. You can find lesson plans online for teaching it, presumably to high school kids.
Except your own excerpt says he renounced rape entirely. If I trust your excerpt, it actually sounds like okay - the author is explaining his own beliefs at the time, not continuing to believe those going forward. I would be leery about a child having to read it, but it's not literal advocacy for rape any more than an ex-fascist's description of why they believed in fascism once is advocacy for fascism.
Could a white supremacist who was a serial rapist of black women be rehabilitated in the public eye? Would his books be studied in school? No, of course not. Why not? Because the left, which controls the educational apparatus, believes that black on white crime is less serious than the converse.
"Could a white supremacist who was a serial rapist of black women be rehabilitated in the public eye"
I'm pretty sure that despite the best efforts of my fellow wokists, we still cover Thomas Jefferson in school fairly positively.
There's a conundrum with that one on the left, I believe.
Is MLK still left-coded at this point? I suppose it's a conflict between the MLK kinds and the newer versions.
Things like civil rights laws are based on the Constitution, and the idea of 'democracy'. They still call themselves 'Democrats'.
It would be somewhat awkward to acknowledge that all of the Founding fathers that wrote the Constitution -that all of the current corpus of laws used to bash right-wingers with are based on- were white supremacists.
The United States of America were founded on an explicit, European and Christian nationalist basis.
I'm sure the left will finally cut that umbilical cord at some point, but it's still somewhat awkward for now.
Why should anybody even bother tolerating all of these other people that the left want us to tolerate, if we do away with the historic mythical essence of the country, which is already pretty hollowed out? The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be written on a piece of paper to have a value, after all
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