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 -
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.
This is just self-sabotaging. If vigilante justice is the right thing to do, then it is also right that the vigilante not be punished for it.
For obvious reasons "well I needed to break the law to achieve the greater good" is a massive slippery slope. I have an easier time believing that the claim is genuine if the person making it is willing to face the music afterwards, and it puts some sandpaper on the slide, too.
If it is the right thing to do there should be no music to face. "You can be a vigilante as long as you're willing to be punished by the very state which made your vigilante actions advisable in the first place" is just a long winded way of saying "You can't be a vigilante".
Have you never seen a western? The hero outlaw who dies and/or turns himself in at the end is a pretty classic trope. The vigilante almost never gets to ride off into the sunset. His role is to offer himself as a moral sacrifice on the alter of innocence and civilization. We love the vigilante as a romantic hero, but his story always ends in tragic sacrifice.
Being a vigilante is really fucking cool and sometimes civilizationally necessary, but you don't get a happy ending. That's always been the deal.
I would say that's a very culturally contingent reading. How many Batman comics end up with Bruce Wayne asking to be arrested? What about the murderer in the Christie's Orient Express? At the end of the Count of Monte Christothe count gets most but not all of his revenge and goes off east to live in happiness with his cute ex-slavegirl .
As opposed to the killer in Christie's Ten Little Indians/And Then There Were None?
I'm more familiar with the space version it inspired, The Stars My Destination, where the ending is all about the antihero's desire to be purged and punished and so achieve forgiveness. But that's probably from a similar era/culture as a lot of Westerns.
I never read ‘And Then There Were Nine’ but isn’t the killer a violent deluded maniac? Whereas the killer in the Orient Express is a symmetricgroup of people who saw a monstrous miscarriage of justice and felt bound to correct it.
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
More options
Context Copy link