site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 2024

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What should be illegal is incitement to crimes.

Given the details of Trump's felony convictions, I'm no longer sure of even this. To recap (to the best of my recollection):

  1. It's a misdemeanor in New York to falsify financial records
  2. This is upgraded to a felony if one does so knowingly in furtherance of a crime
  3. The crime can be someone else's crime, and "knowingly" applies even if one is unaware the thing they're furthering is actually a crime
  4. "Knowingly" can seemingly be fudged more than that, too; they don't have to prove you actually knew you were falsifying the records
  5. The crime itself doesn't actually have to be proven at all. Jurors do not even have to agree about what the crime is.

Putting aside whether we should ban "incitement to crimes" which I think we obviously should not, should we even ban "incitement to violence"? Say you say "[Political candidate] must be stopped" and some wacko quotes you in his manifesto before attempting to assassinate the candidate. Given a motivated enough prosecutor and an unfavorable enough jurisdiction, you will certainly be convicted of incitement to violence for speech which certainly should not be illegal.

The first amendment is important and protected speech should even protect most advocacy for violence. The current rule that speech is protected unless advocating for "imminent lawless action" is good enough, probably, at least until people decide the constitution says otherwise.