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 -
Honestly, it’s also a completely different and worse thing to me. I’m not maga in the least and I’ll absolutely say that if this woman worked for me, I’d fire her simply because she’s cheering on murder. We live in an age of active shooters and I’m not going to keep someone around who sees the solution to a difference of opinion in a gun. Add in the liability that would result from not removing her (if there’s an employee active shooter, any decent lawyer would put this video and the fact that you knew and did nothing about it at the center of the liability case. It shows that threats of violence are tolerated in your workplace) and it’s an absolute slam dunk of a good firing.
Isn't the media constantly telling people that Trump is a once in a generation threat to our democracy? If one of the basic justifications for the 2nd Amendment is being able to overthrow corrupt governments, or prevent the rise of tyrants, then I fail to see how this is out of line with that basic philosophy, at least in the mind of person doing it. They wouldn't see it as a mere "difference of opinion."
Honestly, I'm someone who is able to sympathize with both the sentiment that political violence is bad and destabilizing and should generally be avoided, and the general idea that gun rights are justified as a remedy for tyranny or oppression, though preferably as a matter of last resort. To use a relatively neutral example of the second kind of violence that I find acceptable, I'd point to the 1954 United States capitol shooting by Puerto Rican nationalists. Puerto Ricans don't have representation in Congress, and can't vote for President, so I think that some of them violently attacking the politicians responsible for their undemocratic state is somewhat justified. There is at least a line of argument that it will at least possibly make Puerto Rico enough of a thorn in the politicians' sides to make them have more autonomy or better conditions, even if they remain a de facto colony of the United States.
The problem I have is that there's always going to be differences of opinion among a citizenry. I bet a lot of Puerto Ricans in 1954 thought that violence was tactically the wrong move, or fully condemned both the tactics and motives of the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot at Congress. Who, then, gets to decide when the use of lethal force is justified to fight oppression?
I understand the basic reality that any government is going to try and shield its political class from violent retaliation. But I also think that the United States is a country founded on a violent revolution grounded in a (at the time) radical ideology, and it is hard to actually draw boundaries of when an attempted revolution or an assassination is acceptable. By definition, if you allow guns into enough peoples hands, you're effectively trusting their individual consciences and judgement to make the call for themselves, regardless of what anyone else thinks. The foundational ideology of our country is that it is worth risking ones own life for an end to tyrannical government, and we're just lucky that almost no one actually thinks this way most of the time.
I’m of the option that violence is an absolute last resort, and I don’t think it should be celebrated. Furthermore, I’m also looking at this from a threat and liability perspective for my own business. There are all kinds of things that if I know about them and don’t take charge of the situation, I’m endangering myself, my employees, my clients, and the business itself. People who celebrate recent violence against any individual is exactly that.
And to me that calculation has very little to do with Trump. It has to do with a person who sees revenge killing as a solution to problems. I’d feel much the same, as I said originally, if she’d made similar statements about an ex, a family member, or a stranger I think it would be a cause for concern because there is some risk that a person thinking in this way might get mad at a client or vender or another employee and bring a weapon to deal with the problem. Adding in the liability of not having it be a cardinal rule that violence and threats of violence will not be tolerated in any form, it’s an easy decision that has nothing to do with the political class, Trump, or any other political opinions. She can dislike Trump all she wants. But that’s not the same thing as saying that Trump deserves to be murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This has been my tack in response to the "we need better marksmen" kind of comments (which I am indeed hearing IRL from various Trump-hating relatives/acquaintances) -- "OK great -- I guess you are not in favour of gun control anymore either, and BTW I also know of some people that could use some shooting".
It actually seems to land with them a bit -- in-person discussions are pretty different from online in this regard though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link