site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Update on Felony Charges for Tiki Torch Marchers

A month ago I mentioned the announcement that several people from the Charlottesville 2017 torch-light march were indicted on felony charges for "burning an object with the intent to intimidate." There was a lot of skepticism that this would stick given that the statute is being stretched quite far from its incarnation as an anti-cross burning law. @netstack wrote "For the record, I don’t expect the Charlottesville tiki-torchers to be convicted."

Last Thursday it was reported that a South Carolina man entered a guilty plea, the second one to do so. He was sentenced to five years in prison / four and a half suspended:

A South Carolina man has pleaded guilty to a charge in connection with a torch march that occurred at the University of Virginia in 2017.

Tyler Bradley Dykes entered a guilty plea to burning an object with the intent to intimidate on Thursday.

He was sentenced to five years in prison, with four and a half years of that suspended.

Dykes is the second person to plead guilty.

Earlier this month, Will Zachary Smith of Texas also pleaded guilty to a charge of burning an object with the intent to intimidate.

As part of his plea deal, another charge associated with the Unite the Right rally was dropped.

Smith is scheduled to be sentenced in August.

The significance of this is that it's now precedent for "intent to intimidate" as an avenue for outlawing hate speech, which has traditionally had first amendment protections. I noted that Ron DeSantis's hate speech law signed in Jerusalem also contained verbiage surrounding an intent to intimidate, allowing for protestors to be asked to leave or be arrested/charged if they demonstrate on a university campus for the purposes of "intimidation." There was skepticism that "intimidation" could be stretched so far- but here we are, and it's already happened.

Conservatives are quite capable of lawfare and they have a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court majority. If 'intent to intimidate' rulings were shutting down conservative political rallies around the country they're quite capable of funding legal challenges and appealing their way to a court where they have a sympathetic majority.

The cynical view is that Conservative legal elites are completely fine with having their embarrassing white nationalist fringe suppressed and don't expect the statute in question to be applied broadly. The less cynical view is that this guy was charged because he was part of a group that surrounded some counter protestors and is alleged to have menaced them with the torch, which means he's being punished constitutionally for interpersonal intimidation and not political speech.

The cynical view is that Conservative legal elites are completely fine with having their embarrassing white nationalist fringe suppressed and don't expect the statute in question to be applied broadly.

Wanting certain ideas in Israel: The only acceptable idea, and opposing them is extremism.

Wanting the same ideas in the US: Embarrassing extremist.

Wanting certain ideas in Israel: The only acceptable idea, and opposing them is extremism.

Is George Soros an extremist anti-Israeli?

Soros, who is Jewish, echoed arguments that have fueled a passionate debate conducted largely in the rarefied world of academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the U.S. Jewish community.

“The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism,” wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.

The truth is that while Michelle Goldberg types exist, for the most part Jewish progressives who oppose rightist white identitarianism in America also oppose rightist Jewish identitarianism in Israel. They may indulge discussion about an 'ancestral homeland', but they're not protesting against Israeli immigration law or for the removal of migrants in South Tel Aviv either. George Soros is the primary financier of a long legal campaign to limit the deportation of African migrants to Israel, is the primary backer of the Israeli Arab lobby etc. The ADL is torn between being a progressive organization and being a Zionist organization, its own (Jewish) staffers are now openly more and more anti-Zionist.

Is there some hypocrisy? Sure. That's not limited to Jews. Rightist ethnats often think whites should remain in South Africa even though it's actually the ancestral homeland of the Khoisan. They're unsympathetic to arguments that Australia should be ceded back to the natives there. Hypocrisy is hardly uncommon in politics. 'This for me but not for thee' is perennial. What's your point?