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 -
Is their model necessarily wrong? It seems trivially true to me that the left and right have increasingly divergent views on basic foundational questions like the existence of free will and what constitutes "basic human dignity" or "a legitimate authority". Disagreements on which the Covid lockdowns and "Summer of Love" threw into stark relief by rendering such disagreement immediately relevant to millions of peoples' livelihoods.
I don't think you (or anyone else here on theMotte for that matter) really grasps just how much damage was done to the social fabric in those 3 months between March and June of 2020 and how the memory of those three months is coloring current relations.
You are misunderstanding the concern, the DSA is not the new phenomenon. Violent radicals seeking to install themselves as the heads of an intellectual vanguard class are as old as leftism itself. The worrying new phenomenon is that wishing death on one's political opponents seems to be increasingly inside the Overton Window. Characters like Hakeem Jeffries, Zohran Mamdani, and Hasan Piker are not some wacky fringe, they're who both "moderate" democrats and the anti-populist right seem to be rallying behind.
As for potential for Civil War, I think the US literally dodged a bullet in Butler PA.
I don't know if it would have triggered a war on it's own but I'd put the odds at something like 1 in 3 which is far higher than I'd like. A lot would depend on what happens next, knowing what we know now about the US Secret Service's performance on the day I think there would be a broad consensus on the right that the "Deep State" had purposefully allowed the shot to occur. As I recall the democrats did not loose the 2008 election, in such a situation i think it would take a deft hand on the part of President Harris to avoid a serious constitutional crisis and I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of OKC or three.
Regarding why Charlie's killing didn't set things off, two big reasons spring to mind. The first is that Charlie wouldn't want that. Second is we had a President and AG who could believably claim that they were committed to bringing his killer to justice.
Yes.
As opposed to the 90s and 2000s when 'what constitutes a human being' (abortion, stem cell research and Terry Schiavo) or the calls for prosecuting every president since Bush for war crimes were not foundational questions? Disagreement on foundational questions has always, and will always, be a part of western society.
The difference is that the anti-abortion rancher living in Wyoming in the 90s and the inner city tankie never would have had a chance to directly talk to each other. Instead, they'd watch a staid 60 minutes episode that studiously engaged in both-sideism and go about their day. Now, professional outrage porn curators and inhuman ML algorithms shove clickbait thumbnails down your throat.
And for all the talk of Chestertonian fences, nobody ever thinks to talk about the fragmentation of media.
It seems to me you're taking two elected democratic politicians and trying to smear them by association with a leftist pundit. I may as well say 'Characters like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Nick Fuentes...' Have Hakeem Jeffries or Mamdani wished death on their political opponents? For that matter, I don't follow his stream at all, but has Hasan Piker even wished death on his political opponents proactively rather than mocking Kirk after the fact?
Maybe I'll continue my broader point in a new thread.
First off I want to go on the record and say that I think it sucks that you're getting downvoted.
That said, in reply to your post I don't think those disagreements from the 90s and early 2000s ever really went away so much as they were "put on hold" for a bit in the wake of 9/11 and that media fragmentation is largely the media's own fault. I think that they are the ones who chose to chase their incentives off a cliff, and that NBC and CBS could've learned a lot from the likes of Michael Jordan and Dolly Parton.
Regarding pundits, Jeffries, Mamdani, and Piker have all appeared together and both Mamdani, and Piker have both endorsed killing as a legitimate political tactic and the killing of Charlie Kirk in particular. Yes, Mamdani has since apologized for and deleted his prior statements but pretty much everyone on the right suspects this is "Taqiyya" rather than a sincere change of heart. Meanwhile Jeffries as leader of the house democrats has been one of the the more vocal proponents of #Resistance and the lawfare against Trump as well as flatly stating that when the Democrats regain power they intend to use the powers of the state to make life hell for Trump and any who supported him.
Maybe it's hyperbole maybe it's not, but to me it sure as shit sounds like Jeffries' intends to "to hurt the outgroup as much as possible" should he get the opportunity, and if you were Trump or a Trump voter would you bet your livelihood on staying in his good graces?
I look forward to reading that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link