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 -
So it's all who/whom after all. If Bob does something you find offensive, Adam is excused for hitting him.
No, I was merely acknowledging the circumstances in which the argument for an absolute never-respond-to-words-with-violence-never-ever-never-forever policy is at its weakest. (They are also circumstances in which it would be reasonable for Adam to fear that Bob, if not deterred, might escalate to violence against Adam or his relatives. Prior to the genocide in Rwanda, certain Hutu radio broadcasters regularly referred to Tutsi as 'cockroaches' (inyenzi); 'Useless eaters' (Nutzlose Fresser) and 'Life unworthy of life' (Lebensunwertes Leben) were terms used to refer to disabled people by the Nazis prior to murdering them in 'Aktion T4'.)
If Bob said to Adam "Your mum threw herself at me and ten of my friends last night.", or "You can't $OCCUPATION worth beans, they just promote you because you're golf buddies with half the C-Suite and have pictures of the other half in flagrante.", or "It looks like you have a dead rodent glued to your scalp.", Adam would be justified in being upset, but would not be justified in escalating to assault.
"Acknowledging" is the wrong word. You were advocating for or choosing those circumstances based on your own principles of what is most offensive. These do not turn out to be universal. For instance, insulting someone's mother's the way you mentioned is often considered sufficient provocation, to the point where you'd only expect Bob to do it if he WANTED a physical fight.
No, I was admitting to where I am least certain of my position. In the circumstances I listed, it would still be better if they were dealt with by something akin to a legal process, so that Adam has just as much recourse even if Bob is much larger and stronger.
Based on my priors of what is most likely to signal the likelihood of impending violence against Adam, or against people he cares about.
I think the notion of "(1.) Speech should not be responded to with force; (2.) if (1.) is ever not the case, it would be when the speech indicates the impending use of force.", if not universal, is at least universalisable in the Kantian sense.
Probably as a hold-over from societies in which it was a prelude to "...therefore your family is dis-honourable, therefore my family and our allies can get away with taking your stuff." (This was a much bigger threat in places with-out robust public order, which is why, even though I sympathised with many of the complaints raised in 2020 about the tactics and methods used by police, the calls for the total abolition of police departments never sat well with me.)
Thus, among the examples listed in the second group, it is the closest to the line, even if I would still not hesitate to find Adam liable were Bob to sue him and I were to be on the jury, whereas I would be less immovable in the first group of examples.
That is the other exception to "The person who threw the first punch committed a tort."; covering professional pugilists, people who mutually decide to settle their disputes outdoors, and certain non-standard carnal practises.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link