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 don’t care what the court said. That’s one judges interpretation in this case. Is the term squishy? For example in the Kavanaugh case from a physics standpoint they applied a “force” to the barricade to move it. And that’s beyond looking and seeing if anyone touched an officer or if blocking entrance could be construed as force. I am challenging the law itself not whether the jury properly followed the jury instruction from this particular judge.
The law in question uses a phrase “authority” which could be broadly construed.
If a thousand people showed up to Kavanaughs hearing I guarantee there was an organizer. Same thing with nightly attacks on Portland I guarantee someone was organizing plans.
Bail funds itself is not a use of a force. But it does show that she was working with people who were committing violent protest acts. And in communications with them. Someone on her team was talking to the violent protestors and asking so whose your people doing this.
This feels like your argument is a lot like an economists saying assume a can opener but yours is assume the judges narrow definition is correct. That’s a big assumption.
I believe I’ve done that. I cited what I found with different meanings than from this court. I cited the text.
We’ve both cited one source.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link