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 -
If it’s substantially the same, yes. I think if the person can show by the similarity to the crime they committed that the story is clearly about them specifically, and that defaming details were added to the story, yes. If you combine six stories to create an original story that doesn’t match a real person’s crime specifically, no. The point here is that they specifically told the story of one guy, and it was obviously meant to be seen as his story, everyone who saw the show knew that it was about Daniel Perry. The only place the story deviated from the facts is that they made Daniel Perry basically a Nazi.
Thing is I wasn’t that surprised they went down the Nazi path. Slightly surprised they ended up doing “he’s doing another 1/6 but this time we won’t know when in scare quotes”. In some ways he hasn’t been defamed and it says more about the writers because I already sort of assume they thing their is no difference between a masculine white male former marine and literally Hitler foot soldier planing 1/6 (which is more like 9/11 in their view). 1/6 is a bit of a larp from everybody both those who did it and those talking about it after.
I wander if after 9/11 in 2002 if every brown person literally had OBL on speed dial. Or if the other back then was represented less cartoonishly.
The hard thing which you are describing for a defamation case is how do you draw a legal definition for “substantially the same”. This episode fulfills that for me but I have no idea how you define. It’s a bit like the old definition of porn “I know it when I see it”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link