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 -
It may be that some Blues think that the US would be better off if Trump was dead. But it's a nasty thought, and the kind that shouldn't be expressed.
At the same time, it's very silly for Reds to get so up in arms about political civility and politeness. Of course it is inappropriate to openly fantasize about the death of your enemies, but this is something that Sam Hyde (affectionately quoted in this thread) has been doing for years now. This notion that "now the gloves are coming off, it's different this time" is just not true. People will whip themselves into a frenzy, take some scalps, and then waste their breath explaining to others how it wasn't really their fault, the guy had it coming, whatever whatever. It's tedious and pathetic, particularly when their idea of "wielding power" is snitching on people to their boss. That's the plan, is it - call the manager? That's not wielding power, that's begging actual power to intervene on your side.
This "golden opportunity" will fade. Some libs will get fired. Most will not. Of the eighty million Americans that voted for Biden, maybe you'll get four hundred of the most replaceable and impulsive, and most of them will just walk effortlessly into new jobs. Maybe libs will be a little bit more careful with their speech in the future and not saying obviously outrageous things. Is that what you want? For libs to be nicer to you?
The issue with conservatives is not that they're cruel. You need to be capable of cruelty. Enforcing laws is cruel. War is cruel. Borders are cruel. It's that they're petty. This cruelty is not in service of anything but resentment that the libs got away with it for so long.
I don't want people to start going after Blue jobs, but my impression of this sort of "wet blanket" arguments is that they're only being made when the other side is over the target.
This sounds incoherent to me. If it's petty, and it's no big deal that the libs got away with it for so long, then they shouldn't be upset about this happening to them either.
I don't know if I've ever said it about the left but I've definitely had the thought before. What can I say - I can't prove I'm a perfectly even minded person to the satisfaction of a hostile stranger online.
I don't think people should be upset, but I also don't think that sadistic glee is appropriate either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are always rule breakers, if there weren't laws and norms wouldn't be needed. But Sam Hyde lost his show on Adult Swim, so being too offensive having as a possible consequence your career taking a hit, is a norm which Mr. Hyde's example strengthens the existence of.
Sam Hyde's career is calling for political violence. He said he wanted to kill Hasan Piker in real life. His most famous quote is about shooting journalists. He got his career started off of sketches about stabbing bankers in the face.
I wouldn't say that the issue is hypocrisy. It's that I still don't really get what this is supposed to result in. Does Sam Hyde want strong norms against endorsing political violence? No, probably not. If that's the case, why punish people for violating this norm you don't care about?
More options
Context Copy link
This is so obvious a point that I wonder why it gets glossed over so much.
Yes, you have people on both sides of the aisle expressing violent fantasies and urges. The difference is that for a long time one side would lose their jobs, their status, their opportunities, and their protections. And not just them, but anybody who could be considered adjacent to those sentiments. Not even worth mentioning all the nonviolent expressions that got similar treatment. If you shoved some Sam Hyde quotes in front of an 'honorable Republican', they would reflexively denounce it, and maybe throw in a preemptive but unnecessary condemnation of white supremacy for good measure. There's /pol/, which isn't nothing, but it's also a bunch of faceless assholes who cant be held accountable and whose power level is overstated.
This is all before a POTUS candidate got shot. While I have some respect for the attempts to dissuade people against revenge, I have not been convinced that that said revenge isn't the smart, productive, and deserved play. Moreso, I don't know how you skip this step and go straight to Peace and Unity. There's a gap in this thinking that some expect to just sort out on its own, but I don't see the mechanism or the reciprocity required for it to work.
And when I compare the Left's body count to the Right's today... the suggestion to relent seems facially ridiculous? To my awareness, we have a Home Depot employee, an asshole streamer immolating himself and his surrounding bridges, and a member of a joke band pulling a Kathy Griffin (as in, largely punished by his peers, not external Rightoid forces). Not because of pronoun faux pas, or slips of the tongue, or statements that could be maliciously and dishonestly interpreted, but because they cheered on the death of Trump and/or Comperatore. These are the bridges too far? Really?
I don't believe in God or Heaven. More power to the folks with a strong Christian ethos or equivalent and the lines they wish to hold. I think holding these people over the piranha pit is ugly but necessary. And I'm prepared to accept that I likely won't see a quarter of the just desserts that would make this even remotely symmetrical. That's fine. I'm not greedy.
Why, for any reason, would you want to be symmetrical with the left, or even think it's possible to be symmetrical with the left?
I already stated in my post that I don't expect to ever be symmetrical with the left. Nor do I particularly want to be.
I'll admit that 'vengeance' is on my mind, although I don't believe it to be petty. Nor am I acting on it, unless shrugging at LibsOfTiktok antics counts. Perhaps admitting that undercuts any further point point I try to make. But the most sober, serious take I can muster is this:
There will be no possibility of progress on this until the left gets a bit of this in their bloodstream, and their safe little clouds get punctured. They're gonna need to get sick a bit before they truly appreciate what a healthy body is. Because right now they're still in La La Land to my eyes. A blob that wants to go to the mattresses over Dead Trump jokes after a decade of pearl-clutching about so much weak shit is not a good partner for reform, and I expect them to resume maximum hostilities when they feel free enough to do so.
And if that doesn't work, so be it. I don't know what else comes next. We're not drowning in optimal choices here.
The revenge is petty in that, by your own admission, it is insufficient. It is like Dostoevsky's mouse:
"To come at last to the deed itself, to the very act of revenge. Apart from the one fundamental nastiness the luckless mouse succeeds in creating around it so many other nastinesses in the form of doubts and questions, adds to the one question so many unsettled questions that there inevitably works up around it a sort of fatal brew, a stinking mess, made up of its doubts, emotions, and of the contempt spat upon it by the direct men of action who stand solemnly about it as judges and arbitrators, laughing at it till their healthy sides ache. Of course the only thing left for it is to dismiss all that with a wave of its paw, and, with a smile of assumed contempt in which it does not even itself believe, creep ignominiously into its mouse-hole. There in its nasty, stinking, underground home our insulted, crushed and ridiculed mouse promptly becomes absorbed in cold, malignant and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years together it will remember its injury down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and every time will add, of itself, details still more ignominious, spitefully teasing and tormenting itself with its own imagination. It will itself be ashamed of its imaginings, but yet it will recall it all, it will go over and over every detail, it will invent unheard of things against itself, pretending that those things might happen, and will forgive nothing. Maybe it will begin to revenge itself, too, but, as it were, piecemeal, in trivial ways, from behind the stove, incognito, without believing either in its own right to vengeance, or in the success of its revenge, knowing that from all its efforts at revenge it will suffer a hundred times more than he on whom it revenges itself, while he, I daresay, will not even scratch himself. On its deathbed it will recall it all over again, with interest accumulated over all the years and ..."
Again, it's one thing to be cruel. It's another to be petty, or to seek revenge without even really believing in the justice or satisfaction of it.
I'm not sure it's insufficient. Rolling over and playing nice certainly would be. Time will tell.
I stated my justifications and where I hope they end up, and you seem to think I actually don't believe them. Despite me having just written them out for you. Fine.
You yourself admitted that you don't think you will ever have parity, that you are relying on Blue Tribe organisations to keep their members in line, that you are personally doing absolutely nothing to further this. So, even if you're absolutely right in your principles and in your belief that maybe the left need to have the fear of god put in them (which I agree with), you are doing absolutely nothing to realise that, and not even talking about things that might realise that (like say, a change to the law). If this is you being mean, what can I say - I don't think the left has cause to panic, though they might do so anyway.
I said I wasn't getting people fired. I can still report hateful snots and find I'm getting a lot more traction than I did a few years ago. I am checking back in with people who peacocked the fact that they made whole wretched subreddits dedicated to 45 being dead just several weeks ago now squirm and go bipolar since they've gone under the microscope. And I am finding that a few of my Dem friends may have been caging their frustrations in the same way I used to, while the rest have conspicuously piped down their vitriol to their benefit and mine.
You say 'petty'. I say 'doesnt require that much effort'. Because the beauty of this is that you don't need to go hard when your opponent has so utterly beclowned themselves in this manner. When I say I am not looking for symmetry, that means I am not looking to cancel people for being pro-trans, pro-immigration, or holding any other stereotypical lefty belief. I am fine with profiling solely for people who publicly wish death on Trump and his supporters - who have decided this is leftist territory worth defending - and collaring every single one of them within arm's reach where possible, big and small. Just because I don't have the stomach or patience for this work doesn't mean I don't recognize the utility.
And if this can be accomplished by spooking them into doing this to themselves, all the better. That's decent power projection IMO. I think it's actually great that Kyle Gass is getting sanctioned by his own people instead of his opponents. That's some self-awareness starting to show. If they start to doubt the existence of an actual threat - well, Billionaire Tyrant Elon Musk has shown he's happy to make your life harder if he can half-cleverly justify it even if it breaks his touted his 'maximum free speech' line. The future cultural terrain is looking more and more up for grabs to me than it did in January. If nobody wants to wise up, we could very well make support for increasingly-discredited 'gender-affirming care' worthy of bans and demonetization by some time next year if trends continue.
You want me to talk about 'changing the law'? Okay, sure. "Social media posts cannot be considered as grounds for termination, and companies found doing this will be prosecuted to the full extent possible". While simple and broad, that seems like a good enough starting point for me, is actually close to my heart, and one I can be pragmatic about in regards to exceptions. And I'm just positive this is so widely uncontroversial and easy enough to coordinate consensus on that all I need to do is send an email to Mark Zuckerburg and ask him to lobby on behalf of this beautiful, pure ideal! Now that this wonderfully useful exercise has taken place, what's next, Hoss?
You want a change in law, make at least some people want it. This implied demand that I need to set forth a charter or a ten-point plan on 'How I Would Fix Free Speech On The Internet' is pointless when that opportunity is neither here nor there at this time. Especially when I am actually already telling you this a minimum Step One for such a process.
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
I’d just like to add that the Christian ethos is forgiving people for sinning against you if they repent of their sin. We’re also to love our enemies and do good to those who spitefully use us.
But that’s also in context of our relationship with God, who forgave us without demanding any cost other than repentance. We’re also to be gentle as lambs but wise as serpents, and that means not being idiots in the ways of the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link