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 -
The fact the prosecution is politically motivated does mean it is a threat to free speech. It means if you want to participate in a protest with a political idea that is being persecuted, like protesting demographic change, there is a risk that the prosecutors will be politically motivated to cause as much legal trouble for you as possible, even stretching statutes that would be impossible to predict, like "burning an object with an intent to intimidate". That risk doesn't exist for protestors with other political viewpoints.
I just saw your edit, they circled the counter-protesters because the counter-protesters positioned themselves at the statue they were marching to... This is why the political motivation of the prosecution matters. If you are planning a protest, and it gets disrupted by counter-protestors who intentionally position themselves in the direction of your demonstration, then you run the risk of being charged with a felony for "intimidation" if you continue the demonstration?
If the situation were reversed, and White Nationalists gathered in the path of a BLM torch-lit march to counterprotest the BLM march, do you think the BLM protestors would have faced the same legal liability even if the facts were identical in every other respect? Or would you acknowledge that the political viewpoints are decisive in how this case has been prosecuted?
they circled the counter-protesters because the counter-protesters positioned themselves at the statue they were marching to
Leaving aside that that does not appear to be what happened, since they also apparently threatened them with the torches, that doesn’t matter. The important thing is your claim that "politically incorrect speech is being interpreted as having an intent to intimidate" is clearly wrong.
Do you think in that situation with the exact same facts of the confrontation between the protestors/counter-protestors BLM protestors would face these charges as well? Or do you acknowledge that the political viewpoint is decisive here in how the case has been handled?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link