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 -
This is a ridiculous way to describe January 6
I am not describing January 6 that way. I am describing Trump's speech starting at 11am that way. The riot had not yet started; it started during the speech but Trump didn't know about it, since he was at the Ellipse, not the Capitol. The breach of the Capitol building wasn't until 2pm.
He did, several times. From the Newsweek timeline.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? What specific elements justify stronger language?
The special status applied to J6 was cemented with deliberate lies about the violence committed by the protestors. We know now that they did not, in fact, kill police officers, or anyone for that matter. We know that there was a complete failure of preparation and policing on the part of the government, which made crowd control completely ineffective. We can be pretty sure that there were many plainclothes government agents and informants in the crowd, encouraging others to break the law. We know that the police, lacking manpower, began waving the crowds through, and then that security forces shot an unarmed woman when the crowd tried to enter the chambers themselves.
We know that the protestors brought no guns, even though they could have. We know that they generally did not bring other weapons, despite lies to the contrary. We know they engaged in no serious violence, no serious destruction of property, nor even serious looting, despite complete failure to control the crowd. We know that protesters interrupting congressional deliberations is not some unprecedented event, and in fact Blue protesters have done it repeatedly in the past. We know protesters breaking into secure areas to confront and harass congressional officials is not some unprecedented act; blue protesters have done it before, and without being shot in response.
What's the actual argument?
Sauce?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Insurrection" is a ridiculous way to describe J6. "Riot" is probably the most accurate, but it evokes massive BLM-style destruction, so I can understand going for something milder.
I distinguish between the rally, which was the planned event including a march to the Capitol, and the riot which grew out of it, where barricades were broken down, police were assaulted, the Capitol building was vandalized, and the Capitol and legislative officers were entered.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that insurrection is not the right word, but neither is riot. The crowd was trying to stop the election certification, not just registering dissent.
Didn't they literally leave when asked to leave?
Anyway the goal of a riot is not "registering dissent", that's a "demonstration", "protest" or a "rally" that Nybbler used. Therefore "riot" should be perfectly fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link