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 -
Some one was in favor of executing pro-Trump public speakers, as a demonstrated fact. A swarm of people celebrated the Kirkivesry. People here, literally on this forum, told us at length about how conservatives made that bed and deserved to lie in it
And as a demonstrated fact, enough people were in favor of broad spectrum debanking (twice) -- and siccing the FBI on rando schoolmoms, and harassing kitchen table FLLs, and blocking issuance of -- that these policies happened in a clearly provable sense. Even in the times they faced internal pushback, they still pushed through. It's not some policy proposal you can wave away like some rando put it into a twitter post or wrote up a position paper; it's all been done.
No one polls on it, because the polls don't matter.
"Nearly two-thirds of voters (64 percent) say they prefer giving most undocumented immigrants in the United States a pathway to legal status". I don't think that's real, in the same sense that the '90% of polled want universal gun background checks' didn't real for the polls that actually count. But I also note that undeniable evidence that policy caps out around 60% support in the Bluest of blue states, still hasn't stopped advocates from calling for it, and blue state politicians from doing it.
This didn't work out that way during the Dubya era -- somehow, Trump scores better among hispanics -- and it's not even a coherent position when the progressive position stopped being about hispanics alone over a decade ago. "Will a Democratic politician send tens of thousands of refugees from a Wheel Of Third World disaster areas to a single specific town" stopped being a newsworthy unless a Republican said something mean enough about the refugees.
What protected Douglass Mackey, the First Amendment, or Trump?
That's the sort of question that should make you throw up in your mouth a little, and then you look up the answer, and it gets worse. Same for questions like whether the Second Amendment, SCOTUS, or a politician is the line between California being able to spend two years before you can even apply for a permit. Or if you want a mixed case, look at B&L Productions, or the Defense Distributed cases, or the people suing the Gatalog, or how Mrs's Ames has been doing since her 'win' at the Supposedly Supreme Court Of The Land.
So, when the 'moderate' wing of the Democratic party is calling for an amnesty, will you eat crow, here? Or is this the sort of claim that's only meaningful until it's tested?
EDIT: the good news is that the moderate wing, the decelerationists, and the self-described reasonable people, all get a vote, now. The bad news is Jay Jones won that vote.
More options
Context Copy link