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 -
With no more moral difficulty than I'd have with forcibly arresting someone for assault, imprisoning a kidnapper, or fining an embezzler. Whether an action is morally or legally a crime depends on the full context, not just on the immediate action. It is not okay to kill someone for sitting in front of you, but it it is okay to kill someone for wantonly murdering an innocent.
Practically, I'd still rather not have a death penalty, because our justice system makes mistakes and when it does I prefer the mistakes to be as reversible as possible. "As possible" is doing a lot of work here (if those assault and murder suspects turn out to be innocent, we can't undo a forceable arrest or a false imprisonment, even if we make recompense), but we can do the best we can, and giving life imprisonment to murderers is part of that under most circumstances.
For sure. However in practice people ignore this and say badge means it's okay, no badge means less rights. They are not taking into account full context of actions, rather they are establishing a perverted, travesty caste system between state employee and individual.
How do you determine who is innocent? If someone receives the consequence of their own principles, such as believing in equality and then receiving equality on public transport, was that person innocent? The full context is not considered when we focus on spilling schizophrenics' blood. Rather, the entire concept of public transport, riding it, voting for it, the system of who lives where and why, the system of who is born when, where, and at all, and why, must be interrogated. Otherwise we're playing justice dress up, where limited and select context is taken into consideration and at the end of the process, the common man pats himself on the back and considers himself «good.»
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link