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 -
From OP:
What it says in the article they linked:
So...prison? You can't expect me to believe that in a forum where people routinely express a desire to murder carjackers and other petty thieves that someone being outraged about moldy food and dirty clothes without pushback is evidence of anything other than blatant tribalism*. Not to mention the use of the word 'molestation' without providing any evidence that they were sexually assaulted in prison - which, for all I know, exists, but they don't link to it and (lest I be accused of not doing my homework again) some basic google searches of 'january 6th protestors prison rape' or 'january 6th protestors sexual assault' only turns up a few cases of the protestors themselves raping children or assaulting women. Or perhaps you'll claim that they used the word 'molested' per the dated 'Alice and Bob arrived at their destination unmolested,' but now the level of mental gymnastics you're expecting from me to imagine that the OP is being fair or charitable exceeds my modest IQ.
From OP:
From the article they linked:
You can also follow a link to videos of the protestors being beaten. Why would you frame them as 'feeling' like they were victimized when they were beaten with batons and pepper sprayed?
From OP:
Between 15 and 30 million people protested that summer. Three hundred are eligible for a payout. Based on the estimates in the NYT article, 180-230 will collect and some other undefined number have already settled. From the evidence provided, OP's argument is that some minute fraction of BLM protestors being paid out makes protesting liberal causes anywhere in the United States a net positive, which is frankly idiotic and ignores all the jail time that BLM protestors did receive:
Do you think OP's inflammatory claims brought a reasonable amount of evidence?
We could have an actual conversation about events - the ping-ponging hypocrisy of conservatives swinging from prison inmates FAFO'd to moral outrage at the in-group suffer, and liberals salivating over the possibility of January 6th rioters being prison-raped. From conservatives being hostile or apathetic towards women's sports to suddenly being outraged that the purity of women's sports might be compromised by trans athletes, and liberals who went from supporting cis-women's leagues to dogpiling women who dare to suggest that trans athletes might have an unfair biological advantage. We could have, and have had, more nuanced discussions about both the January 6th and BLM riots - although I admit that I was disheartened by them at the time, at least they were better than this.
This is what the community has come to - low effort, inflammatory posts bashing left wing topics du jour with minimal evidence receiving virtually no pushback or rebuttals. And frankly, most posts along these lines aren't even worth engaging with.
*For the record - prison rape and poor prison conditions are bad, and neither the J6 or BLM rioters should be raped, starved or otherwise abused.
More nuanced is a relative term, not a full-throated endorsement of the discourse. There's plenty of dogs to go 'round, and failing to clear even that bar is impressive.
I used to try harder, particularly when I was temporarily stuck in an easy job that was a waste of my time. These days, too many pokers in the fire, too many buns in the oven and a general questioning of whether arguing on the internet (even in a place like this) is the most prosocial thing I could be doing at the moment.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh my goodness. They weren’t masked? The humanity! Imagine not using a device that had about zero chance of doing anything especially when outside! Clown world.
Yeah, I chuckled at that line too. It seems a bit late in the game to be clutching pearls about unmasked police officers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Carjackers are not petty thieves by any standards.
I apologize, I meant it in the colloquial sense. I was unaware there was a strict legal definition.
I can either edit my post or you can take this as an admission of error. @desolation
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know, those numbers for jailed BLM protestors are also really, really, small.
More options
Context Copy link
Please spare us the sneering that you found insufficient push back on a top level post you disliked in, checks watch, 4 hours in the middle of the week during American working hours.
Have you considered that
and
are related? Consider that rather than us all being frothing culture warriors that many people just didn't have much productive to say about this topic or interest in details and collapsed the post. Criticize what is said for sure, I find value in your posts when you do so, but do you not see the failure mode of chastising this place for not pre-emptively steel manning every possible argument? Should we take your lack of comment on some hot topic as tacit approval of some terrible argument?
Yes. I had written a long rebuttal, but maybe we'll let another comment wither on the vine and for today and I'll knock off complaining about the community for another 6 months or so until I lose my temper again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... yeah. Selective outrage of prison mistreating Jan 6 protestors just sets you up to get owned by "... Yeah, that's what prison is like, coercive authority is inherently oppressive, we on the left support better prison conditions for everyone (e.g. this), while you only support it for your team". “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.", specifically. Sure, that quote is, when examined, a contentless dunk (most reactionaries are conservatives are ok with harsh treatment of white or rich gangsters too), basically just "conservatives are mean therefore they hate minorities" ... but it doesn't help anyone to believe dumb things and it fuel!
Prison is supposed to suck. What we all gain from coercing people to not steal, commit fraud, or undertake any one of the tens of thousands of harmful activities proscribed by law is a thousand time the harm done to those imprisoned, however you account for it. And the harm done by being in prison, being unable to work and play, is a hundred times worse than any extra harm done by moldy food or occasional health problems. So "the food is moldy", "it smells like piss", "medical care is a few decades behind the state of the art" - maybe they should be fixed, but it's just not that bad, whether for j6 protestors or random criminals. Things like this are used to stoke passion by any political team for those 'mistreated in prison' - but even if prisoners were kept in pristine conditions with spotless white walls to stare at, that's still equally terrible for anyone innocent and equally necessary for the guilty.
This isn't a prison. It is a jail, where people, in particular the people in question, are being held pending trial. Such persons, who have not been convicted of anything, should not be subjected to conditions which "suck" more than is inherent in being imprisoned.
Even in prison, people have the right to a minimum level of decent treatment.
Bottom line: If the claims are true, the conditions should be ameliorated and those who have been subjected to them should be compensated.
I’m curious what that standard should be (not as a matter of law but policy)
The obvious starting point is constitutionally defined with a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. From there, we need to determine what qualifies as cruel and unusual, but the core of it should amount to it being fine for prison to suck, but treatment of prisoners shouldn't be deliberately weird or sadistic. Put in the form of sandwiches:
Unreasonably demand, too nice: Not providing my selection of cheese for a ham sandwich is a violation of my rights, I should be able to select cheddar, Swiss, or gruyere as I would at a decent deli.
Standard and reasonable level of suck: I have access to a ham and cheese sandwich. It's not very good, it's white bread with cheap ham and American cheese. It is, however, a normal sandwich.
Cruel: The same sandwich as above, but moldy and disgusting.
Unusual: I have a sandwich, but it is peanut butter, pickled herring, pureed bologna, and like 9 packets of aspartame.
Insert appropriate equivalents for bedding, clothing, exercise space, and so on. It should suck, but it shouldn't be mean just for the sake of mean.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the standard for prison should be reasonably comfortable but cheap/spartan. The punishment is the confinement, it doesn't really save all that much money to have much worse than school lunch quality food, access to books and cheap sports equipment like basketballs and soccer balls and otherwise sanitary facilities. The standards for jail should be a step up, these are people who are still innocent until proven guilty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Less pithily, if you want to suggest that the OP was framing things in a misleading way, likely in a naked attempt to fit things into a false narrative he prefers, that seems perfectly cromulent and also likely correct, and I didn't need you to help me figure that out. That's still a very very far cry from stoking outrage.
You asked how it could be less edgy. CPAR quoted the actual text, which was less inflammatory, no? Not seeing the problem here.
No.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From the post you replied to:
From your first post:
From your most recent post:
So, what's your argument? Is it that Gdanning is unfairly accusing the OP of being outraged/claiming that the J6 protestors are being abused? Is it that OP didn't use inflammatory language in their post? Or is it that OP isn't stoking outrage?
My reply illustrated how the facts could have been expressed in a more neutral and less outraged manner. I pointed out specific words that misrepresented the facts in an inflammatory way, and gross overinterpretation of facts to 'stoke outrage' (see section on argument about protesting being a net-positive activity). I conclude with ways we could have had a more nuanced conversation rather than angry, low-effort posts.
By my lights, you're conflating less neutral with more outrage. You illustrated how it could have been more neutral, less biased, more accurate, all those things. I disagree that this means that somehow it's less stoking outrage than the existing overwhelmingly milquetoast OP.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I remember the "conversations" on reddit, because they were a lesson in effective gaslighting and manipulation. Month after month of tactical arguments msde in bad faith by accounts that went back to their home subs and gloated about how good they were at propaganda.
Those tricks don't work here, thank god.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link