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 -
I'm not sure your first example works as a pure counter-argument since they settled before the case went to court but the rest that waited got their cases thrown out. Though, it's possible CNN and WaPo were considerably more defamatory, I don't know, but based on the wording in the ruling it seems like the judge would've likely thrown the lawsuit against them out as well.
If there was no chance they'd collect then they wouldn't have settled. No indication as to the amount, but settling is a good outcome for the plaintiff.
It's possible but I think it's also possible that the culture-war could've played a role in the judge's decision to throw the cases out. Part of what the judge says is that there was a valid reason to cover Sandmann because the video was "of great public interest". It's like a cito-genesis blank check for the media to just call out and cover whomever they want because they have enough sway to make anything "of great public interest." A bunch of reporters share a video between each other and stir a huge outrage and then cover it in the real media based on the outrage they stirred up. Anyway, I've yet to see anything from anyone about how CNN and Wapo's coverage was substantially different and I find it hard not to be cynical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link