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 -
Well, maybe. It's one thing to say "We concede that Joe was a monster, but he still shouldn't be executed, because no one should be." I can imagine a progressive person saying that about a particularly monstrous white person e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.
I agree that "this person is a monster but they shouldn't be executed" is a harder sell than "this person isn't a monster, therefore obviously they shouldn't be executed" so I can understand why someone would feel motivated to lie for tactical reasons. But I don't know - surely that can't describe everyone saying "rest in power" about a black criminal where overwhelming evidence exists that they are guilty of the heinous crime they were convicted of. Surely some of those people must really believe that they are innocent, even if they have to resort to extremely tenuous and unlikely distortions of the evidence to get there (or retreat into the methodic doubt of "a black man will never get a fair trial in Amerikkka").
I do think it’s likely that such a conspirator exists. Do you have any evidence this guy, in particular, is in that category?
It’s a genuine question, because I don’t have a Twitter account and can’t peruse his posting history. But I think a “steelman” should never look so much like straw.
Well for starters, I'd like to point out that your interpretation of this person's motivation for expressing this sentiment (advocating for life in prison without parole instead of capital punishment, and hence knowingly lying about this criminal's virtues for tactical reasons) is only marginally more sympathetic than mine (conspiratorially deluded about the state of the American criminal justice system), which was in turn only marginally more sympathetic than the OP's (straight up expressing admiration for a violent criminal).
As to whether any evidence exists that this specific tweeter is conspiratorial in the way I described, he recently retweeted (I believe in reference to Marcellus Williams):
and
and:
After scrolling through about four months of tweets and retweets, I have not been able to find a single example of this specific tweeter claiming that a non-black person was wrongfully executed (despite several men meeting that description having been executed this year) or unjustly shot by police officers (although I will concede it's possible that this person is trapped in an echo chamber/media bubble in which he genuinely never hears about white or Native American men who've been executed). This strengthens my opinion that the tweeter's outrage over the executions of Williams and Littlejohn has more to do with BLM than with principled opposition to capital punishment in general.
Yeah, @gattsuru had a pretty damning quote, too.
My interpretation of the original quote was not “knowingly lying.” It was “genuine preference for LWOP over death.” Given the rest of the statements, it’s clear I was being too charitable. I concur with your interpretation that he is culture warring first and foremost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link