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 -
Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.
Sorry, your comment is not right enough. Automatic downvotes! Only running down protesters is approved behavior.
Eh, if being downvoted bothered me, I'd have been gone years ago. I'm content that most people here wouldn't actually be mowing down protestors.
Some certainly imagine that they want to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So has installing "self-defense cannon" in a structure as an anti-mob measure. But law has, for better or worse, evolved on that question.
More options
Context Copy link
Blocking roads is turning the public property into private. It is wrong and shouldn’t be seen as “American discourse”
I would ask you to imagine what side of the Boston massacre you think you would have been on in 1770.
This sounds similar to Jordan Peterson's statement on if you were born into Post WW1 Germany you probably would have been a nazi, or at least wouldn't have actively gone against the regime. But I think the circumstances between being a German citizen during WWII and a colonist in the 1770s are different enough that the same line of thinking doesn't apply.
Analysis of the American Revolution suggests 40% of whites were Patriots, 20% Loyalists, and the rest neutral. So just based on probability, one is twice as likely to have been for independence than side with the British government.
It's very likely at the moment of the Boston massacre the percentage of colonists that wanted independence was much lower, but it was exactly events such as the massacre that pushed many colonists to become Patriots.
I think part of what is muddying the discussion is that the people who are using these protest tactics (such as blocking the road) are advocating for the most insane things and it's hard to feel any sympathy for them. People would be more tolerant of these actions such as roadblocks if the protests were about things that mattered to the general population. Instead, these protestors are protesting first-world problems that only a rich, privileged society would have time to support a population that would care about such things. A poor person in Africa doesn't care about climate change, they would be rather happy to burn coal to generate electricity. A starving person doesn't care about animal rights and veganism.
Furthermore, these protest tactics have almost no actual risk to the protestors. Nobody protesting by blocking the streets is actually expecting that there is a chance a car will just plow through them. If they really had the conviction to die for a cause they should strap themselves onto railway tracks, because that would actually get some attention. When they do something dangerous, all the protestors start to panic as if dying wasn't a possibility of their action.
So these protestors masquerade as potential martyrs of what they claim to be the most pressing point of concern in the world, yet in reality they argue for things most people don't care about and pretend to engage in activity that would make them appear as if they are putting something on the line when they aren't by taking advantage of the goodwill of their fellow citizens, so in the end all they do is serve as a public nuisance. And when the state refuses to take action against this type of behavior, people will eventually lose all that goodwill and will be forced to take action by their own hands.
I mean you do have the extreme folks burning themselves alive still...or have we already forgotten that airforce guy? I agree that a lot of the protests are performative, or not relevant to the culture that the protesters occupy. I disagree that it is an illegitimated form of expression. It has been here from the start and even if it is a poor copy at least they are out there doing it. More than I can say for most of us.
Aaron Bushnell is already out of the public consciousness and his actions did not have the impact he was hoping for.
I will agree that he at least had the conviction to do something, as stupid as it was. Stupid in the sense that it did very little to push his supposed cause of freeing Palestine.
I drafted a post of around 3700 words about Bushnell the week he self-immolated looking into the history of self-immolation and its most prominent and impactful examples and how Bushnell's action relates to it but I never posted it because I never finished it as I got busy and now it's not a relevant event anymore. My prediction was that it would have little to no impact on the public discourse or opinion on Palestine and I think so far that prediction has held true. His actions, in the end, were just a minor net negative outcome to the world. Maybe we might see something happen. But probably not.
I'm actually in agreement with you that the willingness to fight for a cause is something many people lack, and if applied properly can be an admirable quality in a person. The difference between the colonists rebelling in the late 1700s versus a vegan protestor blocking the road on the streets is that the colonists were fighting for a cause a large portion of the population itself cared for, and the colonist was actually putting his life in danger by engaging in literal warfare (or standing up to actual British soldiers pointing guns in the case of the Boston massacre).
The goal of the protestors should be to get people to join your cause so you get the desired end result you want. If someone is going to be a public nuisance to protest for a cause, at least have it be a cause that people actually care about. Otherwise, all it does is make people hate the cause. It's worse than just screaming on the internet or even doing nothing, now you have people who actively go against the cause you want to advocate for. The protests over insignificant things in a manner detrimental to the public is why these discussions are happening in the first place. I think there are a lot of people who say they are against roadblocks as a form of protest but would be willing to condone or at least not be vocal in opposing it as a tactic if it was an issue of enough public importance and significance that it impacted them. But the point is that it's not, these protests in America have been about climate change, veganism, Palestine... all things that ultimately don't matter to your day-to-day American citizen.
Too many of these protests over insignificant things and society will decide it's enough and find a way to just stop them outright. I think I can agree with you that protests can serve a cause and push society in a better direction... but it needs to be used for things that people care about, and in a manner that impacts the people that can make actual decisions. Blocking roads is actively detrimental to a cause, if these people want to protest they should pick a more effective tactic.
Well said. I agree. I don't think that most modern protests are effective because they don't actually have the actual consent of the majority of the people and therefore they fail or turn into riots or disturbances. That being said, even protests that most people endorse will still quelled by the authorities. How do we know when we cross that line. Do we all just feel it?
Good question. I imagine it would work like any other movement in history.
There is some kind of event or series of events that can be used to propagandize and rally people to a cause. Hopefully, the people in charge have some sense to actually listen to the citizens and at least compromise, because if the peaceful channels to resolution cease to exist, the only other option if the situation is desperate enough is the violent one.
That's personally why I'm pro-Second Amendment because it gives the people more options in case the government goes tyrannical. America was founded by violent revolutionaries, after all. I hope it never comes to be but history has shown time and time again that tyrannical governments must be opposed with force.
Indeed. I do wonder what happens when a man with a gun becomes worthless in that math problem. It is coming soon. A robo dog will be capable of killing 40 armed men before they can blink inside of this decade.
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
@Supah_Schmendrick is correct. The "Boston Massacre" was absurd propaganda, and the troops involved were successfully defended in court by one of our founding fathers.
It was great propaganda! The troops and all of England lost in the court of public opinion and the propaganda helped inspire the revolution. The protesters of today are also, often if not almost always, legally in the wrong, but they are hoping for the same result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The same one as John Adams, thank-you-very-much.
So a non-participant also willing to provide a defense to the much maligned accused parties while actually being sympathetic to the protestors' cause?
"On that night, the foundation of American Independence was laid,” wrote John Adams. “Not the Battle of Lexington or Bunker Hill, not the surrender of Burgoyne or Cornwallis, were more important events in American history than the battle of King Street on the 5th of March, 1770.”
Sympathy to a cause has very little to do with analysis of the behavior of that cause's partisans in a particular instance.
Very few people think that way. John Adams was exceptional. Also, I doubt you are defending people that are fighting for the "enemy" here. Do your sympathies actually lie with the protesters blocking the road and are you defending the driver out of a principled stance for representation and fair play?
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
Civil disobedience is is a well worn use of public power in the West. Though I think the French may be the champions at it.
I am not sure it is quite as American as apple pie..but rebelling against authority through acts of civil disobedience were right there at the dawn of the Republic.
Mobs blocking streets and harassing motorists is civil? If they were more civil he'd probably still be alive.
Blocking streets would be almost a textbook example of civil disobedience yes. Harassing motorists less so, but probably still covered, depending on the motorist and the level of harassment, particularly if they were trying to break the blockade. Whether civil disobedience needs to be peaceful is debated. Civil relates to citizens and their relationship with the state, not civil as in polite or peaceful necessarily.
Civil disobedience doesn't mean they are correct of course, it just means publicly breaking laws in service of some goal. Refusing to pay your taxes can be civil disobedience (a la Thoreau) and so can illegal marches and protests (a la Gandhi).
Thoreau, yes. Gandhi and MLK also. All examples of peaceful civil disobedience. Equating their work and the the BLM lawlessness is grotesque.
Blocking roads and harassing motorists is not spinning cotton or mining salt. There's no nexus between the 'demands' and the disobedience.
Much of the effect of civil disobedience is forcing the state to arrest and prosecute you for your violations. The greater the nexus of the violation to your complaint the better. Frequently leading them to appear petty and vindictive, rallying others to your cause.
Thoreau's version was very different. Thoreau was breaking the very law he objected to. Same with Rosa Parks. But in many other cases, the protests were breaking other laws which the protestors had no objection to (except when used against themselves). Blockading streets is not Thoreau's version of civil disobedience.
It hasn't been that for a long time. The state figured out the counter -- just make the penalties very severe, the way it was for the Charlottesville torch-carriers or January 6. Can't run your cause while in solitary in the D.C. jail or incommunicado in a Federal rape camp. And if the media is on the other side, this will all look deserved.
Instead, "civil disobedience" nowadays is theatre. Groups nominally outside the government demand unpopular stuff, and groups inside the government who want that stuff but know it is unpopular pretend their hand is forced.
Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi all went to prison / jail. The demonstrations today are not civil disobedience, I understand the demonstrators of today want to inherit the legacy of civil disobedience, at best they're wearing it as a skin suit.
As you correctly point out the demonstrators are in collusion with factions in the government. Where did historic civil disobedience collude with the nominal opposition to effect change by breaking laws orthogonal to their demands?
Can any crime be newspeak civil disobedience, bank robbery, murder?
Thoreau spent a day in jail (and didn't succeed in changing the law either). MLK, a few weeks, in which they let him write letters to newspapers. Put MLK in a Federal Prison for 18 years, like Stewart Rhodes was for January 6, and he's neutralized, and probably his organization too.
More options
Context Copy link
As much of a Thoreau fan as I am, being a New England Native you have to be; even knowing he never really "got back to nature" and was eating pies made by loving relatives while living in the woods just 2 miles from town. You can't put him in a catagory with MLK and Gandhi for spending one night in a local jail.
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
Civil disobedience properly is directed at the governing authority; not random citizens.
It is one reason why the J6 narrative is so funny to me. Here you had a group of rioters attacking the government. That is the worst attack since Pearl Harbor according to some. But the summer where thousands of people burned cities and harmed regular every day people? Well that was mostly peaceful civil disobedience. Who, whom.
In a democracy, particularly one as deeply run by small-scale voluntary and communal organizations as the US used to be, there often wasn't much of a difference between the two.
Of course, the U.S. hasn't been that kind of democracy for a long time.
This is a 'Hamas was justified killing Israeli citizens, because some used to be IDF' tier justification.
Also the justification for aerial bombing, total war, etc. long history.
Sure, but if we're at that point no one is questioning the morality of shooting a man on the other side armed with a rifle.
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
How about a "right to retreat"? If you decide to leave and there isn't a safe route, that's the blockade's fault. They're still free to block the road, but they can't surround and attack vehicles.
I completely agree protestors should not surround and attack vehicles. Those who do should certainly be arrested and charged.
Or if they're not being arrested, they may be shot / run over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is necessary in the face of increased violence of the protests as well as the bizarro world prosecutors that bring cases against people being kidnapped.
Essentially, the reality is this article, but using the same stats to say the opposite: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2021/10/vehicle-rammings-against-protesters/tulsa/
This is also not "blocking roads" (although I oppose that as well and would defend criminal and civil immunity for rammers) the guy in this present case was carrying a rifle, the person in the "sob story" in that Globe article was part of a group that was throwing bottles and significantly damaged the truck in question. Its not that peaceful protests dont exist anymore, its that they cannot be a reasonable presumption, so the BOP needs to be shifted. And because prosecutors cant be trusted (the ABA and the profession as a whole are heavily partisan) places like Oklahoma and Florida are correct to protect drivers.
What we have right now is near total lawlessness in many states with regards to these riots. People have taken the peaceful protest meme/loophole from the media and attempted to turn it into the Chicxulub crater. My proposed pushback isn't even extreme, its temperate given the problem we are facing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link