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 -
The headline I linked on that question was "‘More of us than you’: Thousands of anti-racism protesters turn out to counter far-right rallies in UK." It glosses the inciting event as follows:
I personally heard about the counterprotests before I heard anything about the actual stabbing; as far as I can tell, the counterprotests were well underway before the arson attempt, and certainly before the apparent traffic checkpoints (of which I had read nothing until your post). And the links I shared did include mention of the attempted arson. Yes, I condemn the burning down of buildings--but then, I've always condemned the burning down of buildings, even when I was being told it's a totally reasonable and proportionate response. But that isn't what my post was about:
Did you watch the video of Ricky Jones calling to "slit their throats," and the crowd behind him cheering that on? The counterprotesters in that case were clearly and vocally supporting more of exactly the bad activity I was complaining about, right there in the video.
My chosen rhetorical approach here was to bring forward the salient things I felt the news media was glossing over (the murders of the children). Now, I can understand why you would prefer that I make the counterprotests seem more sympathetic, but my rhetorical framing is that I was, and am, amazed at how quickly the actual child murders were buried under a shit-ton of reporting along the lines of "whose 'mostly peaceful' protests produce the most shocking and abhorrent extremes?" That's one of the reasons I chose to focus on Ricky's commentary: because it was so salient, given the nature of the inciting incident.
You can't credibly accuse me of being sloppy when I provide direct video evidence of precisely the thing you're suggesting isn't happening, actually happening.
Your post had this:
Immediately followed by this
This is an extremely sloppy way to write if you were just talking about the specific people in your video instead of representative counterprotestors. Furthermore, if you were just talking about the video evidence/Ricky Jones instead of representative counterprotestors, then you were just doing boo-outgroup nut-picking!
I didn't even mention this utterly absurd interpretation of how to think issues of causality with respect policy making since other commentators discussed it lower down:
Think about the children indeed!
The people in the video were the counterprotesters. Do you think a different group of counterprotesters would not have cheered Ricky's bloodthirsty comments?
Which outgroup? You seem to be confused about the rule concerning specific versus general groups. I did not post about "the alt right" or "Democrats" or "Republicans" or "women" or "men" or "Catholics" or "Jews" or "the blue tribe" or whatever. The only groups substantially addressed in my post were protesters and counterprotesters, specifically those reacting to the murders and those reacting to the reacting. What I claimed about the counterprotesters was true and backed with direct evidence: they were cheering on a call for slitting people's throats, which I found ironic given that the protesters had been incited by knife crime. You're the one dragging the conversation (annoyingly and unnecessarily) into the meta.
Now, if Ricky had said what he said and no one cheered, then sure, your accusation of "nutpicking" might have something to it. But it doesn't, because I didn't share a video of one fringe loon saying loony stuff and then say "Leftists are all like this" or something. I'll repeat it, because it's worth repeating:
The video I shared was of counterprotesters cheering for more murder by knife.
That's what you apparently feel the need to defend. Is this because you agree with the bloodthirsty counterprotesters? Is this an "arguments are soldiers" thing where, because you share some of their politics, you feel the need to defend them and/or paint my criticism of them uncharitably?
Concern for the safety and well-being of children should not be such an overriding value as to trample other important interests. And yet it would be a grave overcorrection to instead disregard the safety and well-being of children, surely?
Of course? This is the entire issue---why do you implicitly believe that the videos and articles you shared are representative of all counterprotestors? Just to hammer this home
The video you shared was of some counterprotestors cheering for more murder by knife.
...and I am completely baffled how you are at all reading that I'm defending this. Again, homogenizing your ideological opponents in this way is absurdly sloppy. Seriously, have you not considered that its as invalid to think of "counterprotestors" as one unified group as it is for the other examples you listed?
Why would you believe that? Do you have videos of other counterprotesters listening to Ricky's comments live, and not cheering?
Because that is the evidence available to me.
Indeed! I do not have a video of every single counterprotester doing anything, because they weren't even all in the same place. But the rule is "Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible." Not "Don't post about any groups."
I wonder, if I asked you what Catholics believe, whether you would tell me something about the holy trinity, or whether you would respond, "how should I know, I haven't got time to ask every single one of them!" If you think I should speak only and ever of highly specific individuals, and never of groups of any kind, like... too bad? And if you think that it is somehow a violation of the relevant rule to ever speak of groups of any kind, then you should read the rule more carefully. Either you have developed an extremely idiosyncratic view on generalization, or you are being deliberately obtuse in furtherance of whatever end it is you think you are pursuing by doggedly insisting on the badness of my post.
Of course I am speaking somewhat generally when I say "counterprotesters." Maybe some of them would not cheer on additional knife crime. But the ones in the video didn't hesitate to cheer at all, so far as I could tell. So clearly, those are the counterprotesters I'm talking about: all the counterprotesters who cheered, along with any others who would have cheered, had they been present. Those who did not or would not cheer, clearly are exempt from my criticism; the criteria of the criticism do not apply to them. But I have no evidence that any such counterprotesters exist.
I honestly can't think of any other reason why you would continue to level spurious, inaccurate, and just generally bad criticisms at my post.
I have considered it. It is not invalid, or sloppy, or whatever else you continue to insist about it. You're just wrong, repeatedly, and weirdly committed to staying that way. If it's not because you feel some affinity for the counterprotesters, then the most charitable alternative explanations I can think of are sufficiently unkind that I won't speculate further on their likelihood.
Are you seriously saying that your default assumption is to assume that counterprotestors would cheer the comments if they heard them? That seems ridiculous---that's such a strange thing to believe a human would do without something marking them as really unusual (and no, being leftist and/or "woke is nowhere near enough except if you're hopelessly partisan)
How in the world is your prior this absurdly cynical? Is this the way you reason about all your ideological opponents?
No. I'm saying that the counterprotesters who were there for the comments, cheered the comments.
I don't see any reason to engage you on what you imagine some hypothetical group of counterprotesters would or would not do. My post was primarily concerned with what the actual counterprotesters in the actual video did. Why do you keep trying to talk about imaginary things, instead of engaging with the factual events as actually depicted in the evidence? It takes no cynicism at all to notice the crowd of counterprotesters cheering on the incitement to "slit their throats."
You've moved the goalposts far enough now that it seems clear you've conceded that your original criticism was baseless.
Ok....this is going in circles. Can you please clarify once and for all who you were talking about in these two sentences?
You seem to be going back and forth on this in all the previous replies?
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
I think the world would be a better place if people on all sides were more careful to bring forward all salient points and not just the ones that are most useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link