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 -
"Tussled with cops" is a brilliant way to try to lighten it. The people who attacked cops are cop beaters. Whether it's described as "tussling" or not, that behavior is wrong.
But that's not what happened! The problem isn't with the general jan 6th protestor, but the ones who committed a crime. Considering that Republican senators also seemed to interpret the fund as including the specific criminals who did crime, it at the very least was unclear even if it wasn't the intention.
Sure senators like Cruz or Tillis or Fitzpatrick could be lying about their objections here. But why? What do you suppose the real objections is then? That's a whole lot of Republicans who were apparently mad about it so it wouldn't make sense to just be "Tillis and Cruz hate all Jan 6thers in a way others don't" (Unless that was made up too I suppose).
It's already started a good discussion. What do you think the real reason is for Republican senator backlash then if it's not about crime or the appearance of corruption? Or if it wasn't from internal backlash, why do you think it was dropped?
I think most of the prosecutions were over the top. If you have cops threatening you, it’s not unusual for you to fight back. It was a completely chaotic situation where people who had never been in a situation where the cops are trying to stop them and wielding batons. Most of the protestors were older Americans who had up to that point only gotten a couple of speeding tickets. They were not hardened criminals who went in trying to beat up cops for no reason. They went in believing they were protesting the election of 2020 being stolen, they perhaps intended to chant in the halls of congress or something. Trying to treat such people as if they went in intending to beat up cops and harm members of Congress ignores the reasons they had and the character of those people.
I’m not completely on board with a fund, but these were not hardened criminals and talking about this as if the fifty year old small business owner was exactly like a gang member looking to shoot a cop is ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
Many senators are still very media sensitive. J6 carries undue weight in DC because of the media, the culture (95%+ of their neighbors will be Democrats), and other factors. The reality is that this is a tiny slush fund by Obama standards; has a very legitimate purpose outside of J6 defendants (for instance, reimbursing conservative media outlets for legal fees from when Biden forced social media companies to de-platform them); and certainly wont be the last such fund if ever a Democrat is President. The fact that this isn't legislation gives the game away that this is just Washington Generals behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link