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 are making this up.
"The left actually did this. Well, the right didn't actually do this, but I'm sure they would do it if they had the chance!" is not very good reasoning.
We're not certain the shooter was from "the left". He was a registered republican for two years but had also given a small amount ($15) to a progressive Democratic group. There's still a lot of ambiguity in play and I wouldn't be too surprised if he turned out to be a right wing accelerationist.
I'm guessing progressive who registered Republican to vote in the primary.
More options
Context Copy link
Possibilities on the registration bit include:
More options
Context Copy link
It'll be funny if it turns out to be he was a disgruntled Haley supporter.
Grover Norquist rises from the grave!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m saying that on occasions where reactionary political violence in the US has been discussed on this board, many civilized posters have argued that it’s inevitable because the left have broken the social contract and have been steamrolling the right and that there might be no alternative. I mean, are you really disputing this? It’s not a great leap of a hypothetical really.
You are currently discussing an example of what strongly appears to be the Left breaking the social contract in a way that makes "reactionary" political violence inevitable. They whipped themselves into a frenzy over Trump, and now someone has actually tried to kill him, and for many on the left there is no actual way to walk it back, nor ability to recognize the realities of their position. All they know how to do is double-down, which makes further incidents inevitable, which in turn makes reciprocity from the Reds inevitable.
The Left actually rioted nation-wide. They actually have used national security assets to persecute their political rivals. They actually have inflicted lawless violence on Reds in particular and on the nation generally. They actually have made two serious attempts at assassinations of Republican leadership. They actually have prosecuted Reds for lawful self-defense. They actually have attempted to jail political opponents. They actually ignore all of the numerous violations they actually commit on a regular basis, and paper it over with fictions about Nazis and the Handmaid's Tale.
There is only so long this pattern can continue before it breaks things none of us will be able to fix. Today was just another step closer to the brink.
Here is an excellent article on the Russian revolution:
https://www.theconundrumcluster.com/p/you-should-really-read-this-introduction
Before the bloody civil war there was a lot of incompetence and appeasement. People to the right of other figures, refusing to use power, abdicating their duties and giving power to people to their left and letting them get away with crimes. Then came the violence.
A very rough summary of this: You had the Tsar giving power to a liberal relative Grand Duke Michael, who gave power to the Constituent Assembly (which imprisoned Tsar Nicolas)and the monarchy disintegrated to provisional assembly to lead the country during the elections lead by to Kerensky who followed a "no enemies to the left" dogma while the Bolsheviks were rising. Lenin ended up removed from prison. Both The Grand Duke and Tsar were murdered and Kerensky ended up in exile.
If they actually suppressed the radicals with force, and didn't give them more power the civil war would had been averted or less severe.
Point being, refusal to try to shut down leftist radicals and being afraid more of doing so than them makes future conflict larger, inevitable, and also their future atrocities. Putting and keeping people like Lenin in prison is more important than violent fantasies. It is only a failure to keep law and order and suppress such elements that lead to the Russian civil war and then the red terror.
Rather than lamenting future violence, you ought to be critical of the current right refusing to use power to suppress leftist extremists. I do agree with most of what you say of how the left breaks norms. I also don't want to see things breaking down in the ways the Russian revolution, civil war did.
But the right also breaks norms by complicity and not stopping them. For example, how about actual strong reprisals like trying to shut down left wing media with unhinged hateful rhetoric towards right wingers? Such as advocating to limit their reach by reprisals from their specific state We know the republican party is willing to do plenty of authoritarian moves, by looking them doing so when it comes to the Israel issue.
Although stopping criminals does include a component of physical violence, which is part of any duties of any police force, there are ways to exercise power, (and you are a moderator who have some power of your own however limited), that is different than just physically hurting people.
For example treating antifa as a criminal organization and then arresting their members, and have them subject to prosecution could be one of the possible ideas to suppress leftist extremism, targeting one of the worst of the worst groups most characteristic of it and it would qualify as qualitatively different than just physically harming in a purity spiral people identified as a different political tribe.
Another example, would be to try to debar antifa lawyers.
I see suppression of leftist/liberal radicalism and anti-right wing radicalism as preventive of current and future escalating violence, and the refusal to act as ensurer of things escalating...
More options
Context Copy link
Leftists hold Jan 6 like it was dooms forthcoming. Jan 6th attacked the govt, and didn't burn DC.
Did anyone actually get prosecuted for BLM riots? Are bippers and shoplifters actually arrested? Did Raz Simone actually get arrested for distributing guns that got black boys killed? Dems seem intent on fumbling the bag whenever its their protected classes who inconveniently express their criminal intent, while hushing up every instance where an accepted target is attacked by their pets.
Dems are surprisingly adroit at bending the machinery of govt to protect themselves. They are just afraid that the right will take this machine built by the left and turn it back on them.
He was caught on video distributing AR-15s to random passers-by, but I didn't see those people in the post-killing celebration video.
The distribution itself is a crime in this state, every transfer except gifts or inheritance between family members have to go through an FFL.
GUN CONTROL, screams the democrat, decrying the mass shootings in schools. But a warlord distributing AR15s to randoms is simply community wholesome chungus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes? For example, Shamar Betts got 4 years for making a Facebook post inciting a riot.
Uh...
It's a prosecution (well, guilty plea), but summarizing it as 'making a Facebook post' is... a little misleading.
More options
Context Copy link
120 people with the majority given deferred sentences in exchange for freely burning and looting cities, while Jan 6th and Whitmers glowies get railroaded. The discrepancy shows clearly who is the protected class.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now would be a good time to not fumble the bag. God I hope American rightists are smarter than Israelis.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like if you guys were going to do anything about it you'd have started by now. After 2020 they know they can do anything to you and you can't or won't stop them.
It's way too late to talk tough now. If Robert Evans and all the other antifa leadership had been found decaying under a bridge in September '20, maybe they'd actually be scared to fuck with you.
Taunting people for not doing terrorism doesn't seem like the best of ideas unless you want there to be more terrorism. Do you?
Leftist journalists are ranting about how this shows they need to murder more fascist republicans, with no apparent fear of a 2am knock on the door from the police.
Remember Popehat the famous legal blogger? He's on bluesky telling people to do mass shootings at "soft targets" like federalist society meetings. Can link later if you'd like: unsynced phone.
Political violence is happening. Political violence is going to happen. And somehow the people with all the guns have become so bad at it that all the violence is happening to them and their families.
The time for right wing terror was 20 years ago, and I fully endorse going back in time to shoot evil robots and impregnate hot waitresses.
But it's sad to promise that it'll happen any day now, we'll totally go apeshit if there's just one more riot or malicious prosecution or assassination or ATF death squad or CPS seizing more of our kids to cut their dicks off, we really mean it this time!
They won't even sue the freaks talking about how the shooting was faked by crisis actors for 60 billion dollars. They're not even rioting and smashing up enemy monuments like the left does every single time they throw a wobbly about a criminal getting shot.
They can't even march to protest violence against them without being put in prison for a decade with some bullshit lawfare because one of them held a cigarette lighter, which suddenly counts as cross burning (unlike leftists torching city blocks).
Why should the left fear their threats when they've never once made good on them?
I would like the link. I used to like Popehat before he succumbed to TDS, and I still find his legal commentary sometimes sound. I admit I am slightly skeptical that he actually advocated shooting up Federalist Society meetings, but I would like to see his actual words.
Here. [EDIT] - I've changed the link to Gatt's comment, as his archive link apparently doesn't work when I copy it.Raw URL, since the link system suddenly hates me for some reason: https://www.themotte.org/post/1070/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/229599?context=8#context
There's this thing in the FromSoft games, where you have these Gods and Heroes who did great things, built mighty works, achieved beauty and glory, only to be worn down by the inevitable march of time and decay, until all that remains is a miserable shade. The internet feels that way now, when I compare what is now to the flower that came before.
We need a way to leave each other alone. I don't want to rule the Popehat dude. I really don't want him to rule me. I just want us to go our separate ways, to each have a chance to deal with the world's problems without having to fight each other every step of the way.
Broken link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here, with a backup here for when he purges his timeline next time.
Thanks. Does he purge it a lot? This is the first I've seen from him since he flounced from Twitter.
He blew up almost everything during his twitter flounce, and I'm pretty sure the remainder only exist because he couldn't (figure out how to) delete the remainder. I haven't seen him yglesias his bluesky timeline yet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You guys do terrorist attacks all the time though. Every couple months one of you ODs on 2016 /pol/ memes and shoots up a synagogue or a mosque or a crowd full of blacks and Mexicans.
Who is "You guys"?
Speak of specific groups, not in generalities, and if you want to start lobbing accusations of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, you really need to be specific.
"You guys" meaning the category of right-wingers he wishes would take violent terroristic action, using the specific example of mass-killing prominent antifa figures, a category he presumably identifies with (or else why would he be mad they're not doing terrorism?).
A few replies down he says that Anders Breivik made "a fair effort" so it's fair to say he's pro-mass shooting in principle but takes issue with its practice. Real right-wing terrorism never been tried.
More options
Context Copy link
Just appalling.
Fc writes the following and this is the guy you mod?
"They whipped themselves into a frenzy over Trump, and now someone has actually tried to kill him, and for many on the left there is no actual way to walk it back, nor ability to recognize the realities of their position. All they know how to do is double-down, which makes further incidents inevitable, which in turn makes reciprocity from the Reds inevitable."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's chimps running wild with a Glock, not planned political violence. The closest the right ever got to that is Breivik (a fair effort) and McVeigh (absolute "please read literally any other book" retardation)
Where's the White Army Faction that car-bombed blackrock CEOs, disappeared politicians, shot down air liners, massacred a whole country's Olympics team? And then went on to get hidden in safehouses by right wing politicians until their financial backers got them pardons?
That's political terrorism.
I'm curious: what is it about the Oklahoma City bombing that you consider "retardation"? Presumably you're not worried about discrimination given your suggestions; are you making the same objection Pierce did, or something else?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Little terrorism > symmetric terrorism >>> asymmetric terrorism against me and mine.
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
Err.. She's positing a counterfactual, that's not "making this up", anymore than if I say that if I went and punched you, you might punch me back.
She's positing the counterfacual of "if a rightist made an attempt on Biden's life". but she's making things up when she then decides how conservatives would behave in response. The behavior of conservatives isn't a premise of the counterfactual, it's an assumption about what conservatives are like in the real world.
You cannot have a counterfactual without assumptions. I happen to think, given observed behavior on both sides of the political spectrum, that there would an absolutely non-negligible number of people on the Right doing the things she spoke about.
You're welcome to disagree, but it's impossible to talk about things that didn't happen without said assumptions. Criticize those, as you're doing now.
The required assumption of such a counterfactual is "if a rightist made an attempt on Biden's life". Also assuming the conservative reaction to it isn't making a point by using a counterfactual, it's just exhibiting your own assumptions.
No, the counterfactual and associated, unavoidable assumption is:
You cannot divorce one from the other. You might well disagree with @2rafa or me about how reality works, and given that it's pitting one set of observations about how massive numbers of internet partisans behave against another, there's not much room to resolve it conclusively beyond what a given person finds plausible.
That's a useless counterfactual; it doesn't convince anyone of anything. A useful counterfactual would require that the consequences of the counterfactual be agreed upon.
If Trump had died, I think [Blank] would happen.
A few possible responses.
A. Trump didn't die. (breakfast anyone?)
B. [Blank] didn't happen.
C. I don't think [Blank] would happen.
D. I think that [Something else] would happen instead.
E. I agree.
If [Blank] is, [reasonable possible consequence] or [totally unreasonable consequence], does either option make B a good response?
The first two results for Counterfactual in google,
If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over. The counterfactual is kangaroos without tails, the assumption, is that a kangaroos tails is necessary for balance and without them, kangaroos would fall over.
If Peter believed in ghosts, he would be afraid to be here. The counterfactual is Peter believing in ghosts, the assumption is that the location would be scary for a person who believes in ghosts.
In as much as a counterfactual is used in a conversation, it is to display your model of reality, for instance, your assumptions about the balance of kangaroos, or the mental states of people who believe in ghosts. The discussion that follows would either be to agree with the persons model and the extrapolations that they postulate in the counterfactual, or disagree with it, and argue for something else. Kangaroos actually only use their tails for balance when moving at speed, and so kangaroos without tails but at rest, would not topple. Peter is actually stupidly brave, so even if he believed in ghosts in this spooky location, he would not fear them. Peter's belief in ghosts does not include a belief that ghosts can harm him, so he would be interested instead of afraid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can use hypotheticals to excuse any crime by claiming the other party would react the same. Especially if you don't care about whether your right wing outgroup might have valid complaints about political persecution, and your left wing ingroup might be promoting dishonest narratives.
For example, an apologist for communist crimes could claim that the right wing dissidents murdered by communists would them selves kill communists and then not consider the perspective of how much worse the communists really were comparatively to right wing dissidents.
The effect of not condemning assassination attempts tied with very extreme rhetoric by pervasive amount of people, including in media (just recently a comedian said that if Trump was elected his family was going to be put in a concentration camp on Jimmy Kimmel), and attacking those condemning that rhetoric and the right, is to excuse it.
There is a time and a place for different rhetoric. Is this the proper time and place for you and cimarafa to blame right wingers based on hypotheticals? And what effect does this have?
In the current circumstances, it is a fair interpretation that attacking condemnation of leftists excusing the attacks, helps excuse it. Since if everyone does it, then it isn't a problem. Cimarafa even outright says the inflamabory claim that it is boo outgroup to condemn leftists excusing violence, because there are right wingers who would do the same.
Boo outgroup becomes the excuse for censoring opposition to far left extremsim.
The cultural phenomenon of understating and not caring when events such as this happen and is done by right towards left, or worse, attacking those who do, helps make them more common.
Conversely, condemning liberal extremism and suppressing it and a culture were the media, and politicians like Biden, isn't treating legitimate opposition, as enemies of democracy, well that would make it much less likely. Especially since an important part of the conflict between Biden vs Trump has been when their agenda has been the one that shits all over constitutional duties, which include not only not persecuting political opposition, but also failing to protect your borders and in fact doing the opposite. That is a massive legitimate grievance, where Trump the tyrannical fascist is not a legitimate grievance. Same with Biden the cultural far leftist vs Trump the identitarian extremist on the right. The first is a legitimate grievance, the later isn't.
But in any case, there has been an attempted assassination attempt against Trump, and not Biden. People in the crowd have died. Following rhetoric in media and in echochambers like reddit that has been unhinged against Trump and his supporters. It is in fact the time and the place to condemn it and those excusing it. Holding people who do that accountable is a good thing, while promoting a reaction that allows them to get away with excusing it, and attacks those who have a problem with it is a very wrongheaded approach. It is actually a good thing for pressure to exist against people of differing political groups behaving badly, focusing on the worst of them when they behave in the worst manner. And sure, it is important to not lose perspective, and neither exaggerate, nor downplay. This is a big deal, and there isn't an equivalence.
It is exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time to be doing to be promoting hypotheticals of bad right wingers to excuse and downplay any of this.
I claim no such thing, and I invite you to quote me to show otherwise.
I don't particularly care, I'm just pointing out that it's impossible to consider counterfactuals without having implicit assumptions about the underlying dynamics of the world, which is an utterly prosaic statement.
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