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 don’t know if this is too post worthy, but many black activists have called the cancellation of Jason Arday and the resulting suicide a lynching. It makes me believe they don’t understand why many people found lynching to be bad.
The classic case is Emmet Till. He was accused of raping a white woman but didn’t. Less people would be worried about the irregular justice of lynch mobs if they accurately hung rapists and Till wouldn’t be martyr if he actually raped the white woman. It was his innocence that really made the lynching galling.
In the Arday context, no one argues he isn’t guilty of the charges. Instead, they claim accurately castigating Arday repeatedly for his crime is a modern day lynching. So either they believe any criticism of blacks is per se illegitimate and blacks are naturally innocent regardless of their actions or they are trying to use powerful iconography to prevent criticism of blacks. But that’s destroying their seed capital.
That's not my understanding of that specific case; my understanding is that he was accused of sexually harassing a white woman and it's disputed whether he did or not (some claim that the accuser admitted years later to making it up, but this claim itself seems to have been fabricated) but it doesn't matter much because it's not an offense that anyone sane thinks merits capital punishment.
Also, lynching people is wrong even if they did do something that deserved the death penalty. It deprives the lynched of due process, it is true, but it also deprives the injured of having their injury validated and redressed. Lynchings forever throw doubt on the validity of the victim's injury.
I will entertain arguments for vigilante justice in a circumstances where there is no lawful way to achieve redress but that wasn't the case with Till (and really the vast majority of vigilante justice) so there's no point in reaching that argument at all.
I lean towards supporting vigilante justice only in cases where the vigilante then turns themselves in and pleads guilty to a hostile court. If you believe an injustice has been done and must be redressed outside of the law, very well, but it must then end with justice done within the law, to its fullest extent.
Still gameable, and still has issues, but better than many alternatives.
"Why, Gary? Gary, why?"
Honestly as a case I have mixed feelings about it, but I'm not convinced Gary was completely in the wrong.
Gary Plauche didn't give the law a chance. If we suppose some counterfactual where Douchet was guilty as hell but the court lets him off because the judge has a soft spot for child molesters, it would make no sense to condition the morality of similar vigilante action on subjecting oneself to the (counterfactual) child-molestor-loving legal system.
More options
Context Copy link
Gary is a "there but for the grace of God go I" situation. What he did was in clear contravention of the law. Philosophically, I accept that the state is supposed to have a monopoly on legitimate use of force, extreme circumstances excepted (which does not describe Gary's circumstances). Does the foregoing mean I wouldn't have done the exact same thing in his shoes? Sadly, I don't think so.
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