site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

The big difference between cases like Roof, Breivik, or the Christchurch guy, is that when it all happened we had all the media authorities wring their hands over how horrible the ideologies that pushed them to this are, and forcing anyone adjacent to them to go through struggle sessions of disavowal. The same thing needs to happen here.

the Christchurch guy

Brenton Tarrant.

What is the evidence that the Southport killer was driven mainly by ideology, instead of being yet another random nutcase?

If the Al-Qaeda instruction manual doesn't do it for you, I don't understand why you think Roof, Breivik, or the Christchurch guy get to be blamed on an ideology.

Also the assailant being directly motivated by an ideology is not necessary. In some of these cases people were blaming the broader culture of racism and islamophobia. Again, something analogous needs to happen here.

If you want to find out how to commit terrorism, an Al-Qaeda instruction manual seems like a pretty good thing to read. If I for some reason wanted to go commit a terrorist act, I might go read one myself, even though ideologically I have almost nothing in common with Islamists and indeed, Islamic fundamentalism repulses me. Similarly, even though I am not a communist, if I wanted to learn how to wage guerilla war, I might go read something that Mao wrote. I've read Ted Kaczynski's manifesto several times even though I am not an anti-technologist.

I don't know about Roof because I haven't read the details, but Breivik and the Christchurch guy explicitly, repeatedly wrote that their motivations were ideological. Is there anything similar for the Southport killer?

If you want to find out how to commit terrorism, an Al-Qaeda instruction manual seems like a pretty good thing to read.

If I didn't see people being associatied with Nazism for making the OK hand sign, I might be willing to consider this argument. The Al-Qaeda manual is a closer connection to radical Islam than all the "dogwhistles" that got people fired from their jobs combined.

Also, I like I said (after editing it in, so no foul), direct inspiration by an ideology is not necessary for the struggle sessions to commence.

Sure, but I disagree both with associating people with Nazism for making the OK sign and with jumping to assume that Rudakubana must necessarily have killed those girls for an ideological motive, simply because he is African and read some Al-Qaeda related material.

I'm against struggle sessions in both cases.

I'm against struggle sessions in both cases.

What's been done can't be undone. Balance must be restored.

If you want to find out how to commit terrorism, an Al-Qaeda instruction manual seems like a pretty good thing to read.

Sorry second attempt at this - actually, why? This sounds like a reasonable thing to say but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. If the guy was flying planes into buildings, or planting IEDs, it would make some sense. But he took a knife and started stabbing, most people can do that without so much as consulting a wikihow article.

If the guy was flying planes into buildings, or planting IEDs, it would make some sense. But he took a knife and started stabbing, most people can do that without so much as consulting a wikihow article.

My understanding is that he had planned to commit a much larger and more sophisticated act of terror; I believe the manual he’s consulted involved the production of sarin gas. The fact that he ended up committing such a rudimentary and small-scale attack instead supports the argument that he was mostly just a nutcase who snapped and acted impulsively.

(It could also support an argument that he was genuinely ideologically motivated, but that after reading the manual he realized that committing a sophisticated attack would be prohibitively difficult, expensive, or likely to be pre-emptively discovered by police. Or that he realized he simply didn’t have the smarts nor the wherewithal for it.)

What's been done, can't be undone. Balance must be restored.

If we follow this approach, then rivers of blood will have to flow, and no-one could even quantify whose blood. Should I give the Native Americans my house because balance must be restored? If what you mean is "the overreaches of the left must be punished", well I can understand that opinion, but that's not about balance, that's about power. I'd rather correct the overreaches of the left without doing the same thing that the overreachers of the left have been doing.

Sorry second attempt at this - actually, why? This sounds like a reasonable thing to say but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

Sure, I get your point. I probably mis-wrote my own point. It's not necessarily so much about learning a technique. It's more about this: Reading Al-Qaeda material does not imply supporting Al-Qaeda ideology. I've watched plenty of Islamist propaganda even though I find Islamism to be revolting. If I become mentally ill and go kill a bunch of people tomorrow, should people assume that I was an Islamist simply because I enjoy listening to nasheeds, I've read bin Laden's Letter to the American people, and I have repeatedly criticized US foreign policy online? Should people assume that I was motivated by Nazism because I've read part of Mein Kampf, I'm really interested in the history of the Nazis' rise to power, and I think that the Nazi visual aesthetic was pretty dope, even though I'm not a Nazi? Should people assume that I was motivated by communism because you could find a track record of me making dark references and jokes to killing the rich and taking their stuff, even though I'm not a communist and am pretty sure that communism doesn't work? Should people assume that I was motivated by anti-technologism because I've read Kaczynski's manifesto and I agree with some of his points, despite not being an anti-technologist?

The reality is, if you had access to my Internet history and my book-purchasing history, and I went insane and killed a bunch of people, you could probably cherry-pick reasons to ascribe my act to almost any ideology on the face of the planet.

If we follow this approach, then rivers of blood will have to flow, and no-one could even quantify whose blood.

Well, you know what they say.

Okay, okay, just kidding! You're right, of course, and just caught me in a bad mood.

More comments