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 did read the Millennial Woes summary, that's the thread we are in...
We are going to disagree pretty egregiously on this one. I don't speak British slang well, but it seems to me, it looks like he said "Wow what a bad ass you are, such a tough guy, I bet you think you are so cool you fucking coward" That's not "friendly" banter. Nowak was definitely provocative and taunting him. We can agree he didn't touch him or threaten him. But that sort of taunting, at the right person carries a very large risk that they will inflict violence on you. Come to Chicago and say that to a bunch of hood rats, I'd bet money that they would A) Beat you badly, B) Stab you, C) Shoot you, or D) All of the above. It is putting yourself in risky position no matter how you slice it.
So dude just called him out as a "bad man" for no reason? Novak stopped walking for what reason?
I'm sorry, but normies, which Nowak was, do not look at crime states, education rates, and salaries. They are not judging people on their socio-economic group status like some autistic HBD person.
Honestly this whole discussion, is an example on how people don't want any personal responsibility for their own actions. Nowak was not some bystander who got stabbed, he engaged with a dangerous person, which was a dumb fucking move, and then taunted that dangerous person, which lead to him getting stabbed, to death. Everyone defending him wants to ignore his personal responsibility in the matter. I need to go through my past responses and see how many of you were making pro-personal responsibilities and risk-based arguments on the topic of abortion, because any who were are blatantly hypocritical.
Well I do, being from the UK. And taking what we know about Nowak's outgoing and friendly character, what he was snapchatting before, and the fact that at no point during the trial did anyone suggest that what Nowak had said was aggressive, I can conclude that he was being friendly, not aggressive.
But he wasn't in Chicago talking to a bunch of hood rats. He was in a leafy, middle class surburb talking to an individual.
That was obviously a reference to the knife. Nowak stopped walking because he wanted Dugwa to join in his banter.
No, but they do take into account e.g. every Sikh I have ever met or read about is a middle-class professional. Imagine if Dugwa was Asian American, that's the kind of (correct) socio-economic stereotype someone raised in the UK would be working with.
To me it looks like you trying to assign as much of the blame as you can on the murder victim, with the necessary commensurate reduction of blame on the murderer.
Trust me, to British people this whole thing is jarring. It isn't like he was talking to a surly black kid with his hood up. This is more like seeing a Japanese guy on the streets of San Francisco dressed like a Samurai, making a jokey comment about his katana, and then the Japanese guy actually drawing his sword and attacking. Or maybe seeing this guy playing his bagpipes, saying 'nice sword mate' and then him reacting violently.
Touche, I can admit my cultural radar is less attuned than a local. If that is the case it, it would be extremely jarring.
That said if I am walking down the dark streets of SF and some Japanese guy with a katana is scowling, and I am just barely tipsy, I'm not going to stop and try to banter with him. Banter IS NOT always well received. Banter requires an existing relationship or existing knowledge of how the other person will take it. Some people just take it as insulting. It's horrible that this is how that lesson needed to be learned.
This is what I am doing, trying to determine how much Nowak participated in a situation that escalated to an disastrous outcome. If wish think of that as blaming the murder victim, you can, but I do not. I'm not really shame-able along those lines because the feminists beat that out of me with "blaming the rape victim" when I asked questions. It feels like this line implies you are trying the same tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The government is not supposed to allow dangerous people to immigrate to your community, give them weapons, take away yours, and then tell you that you're not bleeding when they stab you to death and call you racist. You're basically saying Nowak asked for it: but Digwa's response wasn't proportional at all. Worse, Nowak lives in a society where Digwa isn't even supposed to have weapons, yet he did, the same way he knew that when he was in trouble that he could claim racism and everyone would take his side.
More options
Context Copy link
This can be 100% true and it still be right for Digwa to get convicted for murder, just like how the hood rat gets convicted for murder. The whole "but anti white racism" bring played up by far right grifters is its own thing but Digwa absolutely deserves being convicted here.
I'm not defending Digwa, and he and his family should absolutely be convicted. My position/question as it always is in these situations is to determine how much the victim contributed to the situation going sidewise.
The trick a lot of victim supporters always want is that they want to frame the victim as this complete innocent bystander who was just set upon by the perp, no culpability. When the reality is that a lot of these victims put themselves in risky positions and then don't want to deal with the logical consequences of their set of actions. The former terrifies people in the way that random acts of violence, rape, fraud, etc. always do. The latter is more realistic, in the sense that if you have some common sense and a bit of risk avoidance you can genuinely avoid being put in these sort of situations. But activists/culture warriors always want it to appear to be the former because that helps the cause more. Which I think obscures the truth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link