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 want to pre-register a bet and get some opinions on this one. This death threat is absolutely fake, right? The grammar is ridiculous, and the word and phrasing choice is an absolute parody. Everything about it smells like an educated non-english person larping with zero understanding of what the natives actually sound like.
It reminds me of my college professor who smashed her car windows and wrote "brave dykes will never smash the patriarchy" on it to blame frat boys (which worked on the college, but fortunately not the police & insurance agency).
I expect we'll never hear about it if it turns out she wrote it. But I doubt even the met would grab some random local boy and use him as a scapegoat like my college tried In that incident.
There is the slight possibility of an extremely-smart neo-Nazi who wrote (on his own or with DAN) a death threat that deliberately looks faked - a death threat that looks fake would be ideal insofar as the target would be scared (knowing she didn't write it herself) but she'd be in danger of getting accused of fakery if she published it. (That said, if you're smart enough to do that, you might be smart enough to just straight-up kill her and get away with it instead of beating around the bush.)
There is also the possibility, as Amadan has noted, of somebody not National Action but also not Shola sending this - perhaps as a false-flag by Antifa or similar groups, who would plausibly use some of the vocabulary of the letter. In this case it is "fake" in the sense of National Action not planning to kill her, but "real" in the sense of "yeah, she is somewhat honestly scared".
But yeah, probably not sent by white nationalists and Occam's Razor points to her making it up. And if it's actually true that she's gone to Twitter but not to the police, that's evidence of specifically her faking it since going to the police would still make sense in both the more complicated scenarios.
But killing her doesn't really accomplish anything. People whose politics you oppose die all the time, and if she's murdered it would only fuel the narrative that there's violent extreme racism. On the other hand, if she's discredited, it makes it look like the entire activist movement is composed of grifters who are staging publicity stunts to generate sympathy for their cause. Especially since the movement is slow to deride one of its own even after the general public has—look at the people still supporting Jussie Smollett even after he became an object of ridicule in the mass media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link