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 -
Name me one, please. Literally a single example.
And to save us both time: a politician tweeting a link to a 501(c)(3) non-profit so the public can donate is not 'literally offering to pay bail,' nor are personal donations made by campaign staffers.
This whole talking point is also kind of moot? The vast majority of people arrested in the 2020 protests weren't even held on bail at all. And whatever money that did get donated, according to MFF's financial disclosures, didn't even get used for 2020 protest cases, but for later, unrelated cases. They took in $40 million in the weeks following Floyd's murder, and ultimately spent only $200,000 of that on protest-related bail.
No, it's not and I retract the statement, but it's the next building down and in some ways it's worse. If you have politicians tweeting, in the middle of massive riots and arson, that these people are heroes and you need to support X fund to bail them out when they get arrested, does it matter whether the politician personally put in their own cash? Kamala Harris, who became the second most high-ranking politician in the whole country, helped them raise forty million dollars to bail out rioters.
The fact that the BLM rioters had enough institutional support that, despite all the stuff burning and the murders and smashing and the looting, despite the fact that you weren't supposed to be going out because there was an infectious pandemic, despite all that hardly any were arrested and the ones who were arrested were almost always let go without bail, is not the defence you think it is. As always, see the contrast of the Canadian truckers who had the jackboot come down on their necks.
The fact that this fund spend two hundred thousand dollars bailing out rioters, looters and arsonists is, again, the problem. And they didn't limit themselves to that because they were careful about who they bailed; according to your cited article "The MFF later addressed critics in follow-up tweets, saying all protest-related bail sent their way had been paid." and "“Without jeopardizing the safety of the folks we bailed out we paid well over $200k in the weeks since the uprising alone. We are working on doing more,”" and "critics questioned why more hadn’t been spent and suggested some of the funds could be redirected to other causes or small businesses in the community. Others defended the organization for trying to establish the infrastructure to deploy the millions of dollars". This isn't restraint, it's either embezzling or pipeline difficulties.
And note the use of the word "uprising". This is left-wing illegal violence dressed up as liberation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link