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 -
You don't actually quote a specific post, but most of my posts that fit your description were not a central example of "justifying violence in self-defense". They argued that Blue Tribe had collectively engaged in organized political violence and gotten away with it, and that this removed most good-faith objections to Red Tribe doing the same. There was an exchange about self-defense specifically, but I'd be surprised if that was the one you were referring to.
Given the references to the schisming, probably talking about this event and this comment, referencing this post, which was about those good-faith objections.
That said, yakultbingedrinker's comment (that were also highlighted as "evil sentiment and a precursor to atrocities", and received more emphasis) were about self-defense; Tyre_Inflator may have confused you and him.
The comment I was thinking of was linked in your first link, here, which was about self-defense and Tracing Woodgrain's comment that Kyle should have just let his attackers beat him as much as they wanted and hope they had the mercy not to kill him, rather than fighting back.
yakultbingedrinker's comment was very similar though.
@FCfromSSC this was the post of yours I meant, which was cited as justification for the schism.
Trace’s argument is similar to the pro-russia argument that if ukraine had simply rolled over and surrendered itself into russia’s power, a lot of people who did not ‘need to’ die 'probably' wouldn’t have, even if ukraine had the right to fight. Although I don’t recall you or @FCfromSSC making that argument (as opposed to other pro-russia commenters).
Possibly because they're not against Ukraine defending itself. But if you want to point out inconsistencies, it's weird how you haven't brought up Trace making that argument re: Russia.
What do you mean? I don't have a database of everyone's arguments, I just have knowledge of both side's common arguments + sporadic recollections of commenter-specific ones.
I am pointing out an inconsistency in a hypothetical left-wing commenter who supports trace's argument here but denies it in ukraine's case just as much as his right-wing counterpart who does the opposite.
I'm gonna stop because the whole thing is petty one-up-manship, but I suppose pointing that out is precisely my point.
Probably best, because I’m very annoyed that I apparently can’t point out a double-edged inconsistency without being accused of left partisanship. If the blood spilled in avdivka is on ukraine’s hands, then the blood spilled in kenosha is on rittenhouse’s hands. I oppose all of these ‘utilitarian’ ‘yielding to the unrighteous’ arguments.
I don't think a single person here has ever argued that the blood spilled in avdivka is on Ukraine's hands. I don't think I've ever seen that point of view put forward anywhere, ever. It seems possible to me that you're arguing against a fictitious position, at least outside Russia itself.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link