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'm not fooling anyone, Did Sedan Hussein do 7/11 has over half a million views from just nine days ago. People are still doing dark humor.
And again, this would not be a thing if dark humor wasn't still real. One of the most egregious and awful child traffickers in modern history, and still a joke.
Yes, that's what I said. I'm pretty sure someone gave you a list of cancellable jokes within the last day or so. Also, you keep providing links to exactly one kind of offensive humor, and avoiding the kinds that you know are still cancelable. Hell, you even explicitly defended cancellations for dark humor.
Can you show me any dark humor joke that a person has been charged and convicted of in the US in the past 30 years? Dark humor is in fact allowed in the US. Let's go even further, 50 years. That's a pretty generous amount of time for modern day.
The only thing even like that is stuff like Larry Bushart being put in jail for a short period for a meme, and I've not contested nothing ever happens in any form ever never even from small government officials, but that it's rare and doesn't escalate into anything further. Even Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE called Bushart one of the most egregious examples he's ever seen, which shows both that Bushart like situations are rare and that further escalation doesn't happen. Because if it was common and not particularly extreme, then it wouldn't be an egregious example.
Can you point me to the comment in this chain that says any of this conversation is about charging and convicting people?
What other standard do you intend to use then? "People said mean things to me that I didn't want to hear, therefore I feel censored"?
Sounds like that would be a bit ironic given the context.
If I say "lol would be so funny if I raped your mom" and you said 'fuck off cunt" and I go whining about how dark humor isn't allowed anymore, I'm just an idiot. Dark humor was allowed, it's just that mean responses back to me was also allowed. Rights to free speech (and accompanying it, rights to free association) do not belong just to me.
Why are you acting the 10 years never happened? Why are you acting like you haven't been linked specific examples from which the standard is absolutely clear? Why are you doing so specifically after you explicitly defended firing people for edgy jokes?
I don't mind you defending a different position, but again, who do you think you are fooling?
Government.
Calls for government to do something.
Literally government.
Government.
Notice something in common?
Private organizations are allowed to do that! Free speech is not the right to someone else's home or job offer! For example if someone tells you to leave their property cause you called their mom a whore, you get the fuck off their property. You have not been censored and your rights have not been violated, because you have no right to their property.
The first amendment is about government. If a private organization wants to trespass you for speech, they can. If they want to fire you for speech, they can. You do not have a right to seize and steal from others cause their response makes you feel sad about saying something.
What standard do you want to use that isn't demanding other private actors forfeit their freedoms?
No, noticing that the government did not do something that it happily did in other contexts.
Not only does California have a law requiring private businesses to recognize the free speech of their employees, and the NLRB require private businesses to recognize free speech rights about working conditions, the agency review held that federal anti-discrimination law instead required businesses be able to fire him.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link