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 -
They were squatting on the electric bikes, trying to bilk the system to get free rides, and you don't think they were in the wrong?
They filmed for posterity and posted it in order to gin up an outrage mob, and you don't think they were in the wrong?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior. If they didn't want to give up that bike (not theirs), then they should have paid for it.
They were ganging up on her, and trying to intimidate her into letting them continue to squat on the electric bikes. I don't see how that portrayal is inaccurate. I also don't see how this is supposed to be exculpatory for the teenagers. They wanted to cheat the system, someone didn't want to let them cheat the system, and so they intimidated her, harassed her, then recorded it out of context, released the video, and cost her her job and shamed her publicly. The woman literally did nothing wrong and deserved none of this.
I think this is a better explanation than that twitter thread.
If you believe in this legalistic tripe then the whole edifice of decorum collapses, and I think decorum is good. If someone was standing at a bus stop in the rain, person A asked if they could stand under person B's umbrella would 'if they wanted an umbrella they can pay for their own' be an appropriate response? It's ironic that people complain a lot about low-trust society here but as soon as it's black teens and a white woman it's all 'well technically she paid for the bike so she has zero obligation to act in polite and accommodating manner'.
What system of decorum doesn't favor a visibly pregnant woman over a youthful male in choosing one of the two to rest their feet?
Not really relevant as that's not what the comment said. I agree the kids should have given the bike up (though I think the woman was still in the wrong for her subsequent actions), given that she is pregnant, but not on the grounds that the comment above suggested.
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody said that what the teens did isn't a violation of decorum. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it's possible for both parties to be in the wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I said I think they were in the wrong. I don't think they were trying to steal her bike or assaulting her.
She rented it, it was her bike, they were trying to intimidate her into letting them use it for free after the system decided that no one wanted to use it.
More options
Context Copy link
There's also a narrative that she was stealing the bike. Why ignore that?
It seems like you're trying to justify a pretty poor reaction by a lot of people.
More options
Context Copy link
You said both sides were wrong. I don't see how the pregnant lady is anything other than entirely blameless
There is a pathological need for some people to find “nuance” or “both sides” any dispute.
At least when it appears the side they favor is in the wrong, anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because at worst she's objecting to people engaging in antisocial behavior.
Exactly. She wasn't agreeable and submissive but that doesn't mean she did anything wrong
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