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 -
Of course not. "Widespread" means they were doing it many times, in many places - while the right did it just once. And was suppressed with furious force, way over what has been necessary to restore order, while much worse behavior from the left is routinely going unpunished - or frequently even rewarded - for decades.
Would you buy "mostly peaceful"? Because that's what we've been sold about Floyd riots, which did billions of damage and actually caused deaths. By the standards of those - again, for which virtually nobody is punished, select one-off sweetheart plea deals aside - they were extremely peaceful. I mean, they didn't even set the building on fire, amateurs. And a number of people on record for inciting the violence turned out to be suspiciously close to governmental "assets".
Oh, you know perfectly well the leftist protestors do way, way more than "voicing". I know it, you know it, you know that I know it - why do this? How much contempt must you have for your opponents to throw them a lie right in the face in full knowledge that both sides know it's a lie?
Nobody tried to kill specific members of Congress. Oh, my bad, somebody did try it - James Hodgkinson - only he was from the left. So, no national conversation on this one. No Congressional hearings orchestrated by Hollywood producers.
Because it is not true, and it is the correct behavior to deny it. J6 was a significant event, true, but in no way unique (except in a trivial way that every event is literally unique, being the only instance of itself), and especially not unique in the way that the left is trying to present it, as an unprecedented instance of political violence or insurrection - which is total falsity, political violence has been common on the left for decades, and there was no insurrection (come on, the bunch of gun nuts from the most gun-owning nation on earth stage an insurrection to overthrow the government and don't bother to bring a single fucking gun?! you really think we are extremely dumb here, do you?). It has been turned into political theater aimed at suppressing the Right's participation in the public politics (to some measure of success - the Left has several movements capable of turning out thousands to the street and produce political violence - or "mostly peaceful" if they want so - on demand, the Right has none) but nobody on the Right - or in fact on any side - owes to participate in this theater.
I dislike language like this because you’re needlessly raising the stakes. This is an Internet forum, we’re just talking. My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels. Please step out of the bad faith arguing loop where you assume I’m trying to lie to you.
I’m trying to say that J6 was unlike other protests because of the nature of its goal and the scale. They didn’t want to affect the democratic process, they wanted to control it. Again I want to stress: Say what you will about left leaders handwringing or outright supporting riots (as you should), but none of those people stood to benefit directly from the rioting. Trump directly stood to gain from J6. And again, we’re talking about a mob breaking into the capitol building while Congress was in session. It’s never happened before!
I just don’t see your view that ‘the left’ is regularly using political violence and getting no pushback on it. The BLM protests were mostly half-heartedly condemned and under-punished, but they did hurt public opinions of democrats and especially far left figures. It was not forgotten.
How else should I interpret saying things which are not true? You say "My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels" - and yet you describe them as "voicing their concerns", despite knowing there were violent riots. Why don't you say "violently rioting" but "voicing"? OK, you are not trying to lie - what are you trying to do when you do this?
Just as many other violent rioters, "occupiers", etc. did. The left routinely blocks and disrupts events where the speakers they do not approve appear, they disrupted democratic processes numerous times, they performed "direct actions" as "retaliation" for political actions many times, etc.
Of course they did. They got the policies they prefer to be implemented or upheld - and they got their opponents disrupted, intimidated or inconvenienced. Of course they benefitted from it, that's why they are doing it!
So? The leftist politicians routinely gain from the policies that result from the pressure they apply on the political processes. Of course any political process is done for somebody to gain something - otherwise it would be pointless. Why perform a political action if nobody gains anything from it?
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/07/8-times-left-wing-protesters-broke-into-government-buildings-and-assaulted-democracy/ That's only a small sample. I don't think whoever informed you did a good job.
"I don't see it because I don't want to see it" is not as strong an argument as you seem to think it is. Yes, I know you don't see it - that's exactly the problem, you see any disruption from the right with a microscope and the mass violence from the left leaves you legally blind.
I am not sure how it is an excuse of anything. "The institutional left ignored and enabled the riots" - "No, but they lost the election because of it!". Yeah, well? They deserved it. The fact that they got punished for it is not some argument to their benefit. They should have behaved differently, and they didn't. The fact that the voters punished them doesn't gain them any merit.
And people argue about it endlessly. It doesn’t go unexamined, and I think we’re well past the ‘de-platforming’ era. It’s not that these things don’t happen or are justified, it’s that you can’t say “The left does xyz and nobody says anything about it!” Because they do! And they should!
And you can certainly argue that violence at protests is under prosecuted or underreported. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is irrelevant. Either we have consistent standards for this kind of thing or it’s just partisan.
Do you consider J6 to be ‘applying pressure to the political process’? In an earlier comment you compared it to leftist protests “done for explicit purposes of influencing the policies“ Now in a technical sense sure, overturning an election in favor of the loser is influencing policy, but surely you would agree that it’s different than a crowd screaming in a state capital about a bill being passed.
I have repeatedly centered on one event, J6, as being a very significant and damaging moment that should not be dismissed. Trump’s pardoning of the people who perpetrated it in his name only adds to the distrust it sows. I maintain that there is no comparable event from the left.
I have acknowledged that left wing riots, particularly 2020, have gone under-condemned, although I do think they fall short of ‘mass violence’.
The federalist article provides a list of some government buildings being occupied, including people yelling the senate gallery while Pence bangs his gavel(?) and asked for them to be removed. (I’ll remind you that on J6 we had staffers piling up furniture to barricade senate doors.)
Yes, these are bad, yes, left wing protests get violent. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is just retribution and can be ignored. The difference in scale is immense! Breaking into the Interior Department over the need to declare a ‘climate emergency’ is not the same as trying to overturn an election.
———
The story of Joe Biden sneaking into the senate in 1963 is a particularly infuriating inclusion in the article since it’s is plainly not leftist assault on democracy and is only included as a braindead ‘gotcha’. This doesn’t really detract from your point but it made me mad.
Based on what? I read about the instance of antifa mob shutting down a conservative speaker just last week.
Yes, the right speaks about it and to some measure pushes back now. The left however, predominantly and typically, does not. Thus, they do not have a standing to harangue the right about one single instance where the right did what the left has been doing for decades, and look all offended when Trump pardons protesters, when their DAs release violent protesters by thousands and their mayors instruct the police to "give space" to the rioters. When the left cleans their own room, they will gain such standing, but not before. Before, all their complaints can only be treated as partisan propaganda, aimed at gaining advantage over the opposition.
It's not irrelevant, just not unique in a way the left presents it. It is unique in a way that in this one, single instance the right behaved like the left has been behaving for decades. And that shocked everybody. They're not supposed to be allowed to do that! That's our privilege, not yours!
Yes, that literally was the point of it. Just as it is for the leftist protests, both peaceful and violent.
Here we go again. I think we were past the point where we agree it's way beyond "screaming" or "voicing" - and yet we're back there. How comes?
It is significant, but the "damage" is mostly the left hyperventilating over the rubes usurping the privilege that they weren't supposed to be having. The political mob violence was supposed to come only from the left to the right, never the other way - and the left was shocked when it turned not to be the case, despite the violence being very mild by the standard of leftist riots. The rest of the damage was inflicted by the left (including literally murdering at least one person and ruining the lives of many others) on the right to prevent it from ever happening again and to intimidate them into going back to the old ways. And that was massive damage that ruined the lives of thousands of people. The left suffered zero damage at all in this instance.
Distrust? We're way beyond distrust. Have been for many years. The left has fully weaponized the federal government to prosecute political enemies, we literally had show trials, we had lawyers being threatened (and sometimes not only threatened) with disbarment for taking a wrong client, we had the government instructing the press and the social media companies to censor political opponents, we had successful disinformation campaigns waged by the government-tech cartel, we had wholesale pardons and other obviously corrupt behavior... And when Trump pardons a grandma that walked into the Capitol - that's when you're worried about "distrust"? Don't worry, it won't cause any distrust - because any trust that could have existed is long, long gone. Maybe we can build another one, in a couple of decades, but it'll require work from both sides, and I don't see the left showing much interest. They consider the right literally hitlers - why would they need to build any trust with that garbage, those deplorables?
That was supposed to impress me? Why should I be impressed by theatrics of some interns doing something overblown? If you want to mention anything shocking - mention Michael Byrd murdering Ashley Babbitt. For which he had zero justification, she was unarmed and did not pose any serious threat. Just imagine the protests if a white cop shot an unarmed black woman, during a BLM protest... But with the races reversed, of course, the evaluation of the situation is reversed too.
It shouldn't be ignored, it should be treated in context, as an instance of the right doing once a mild version of what the left has been doing dozens of times for decades. Is it good? No, it is not, because all political violence is bad. But having said that, the full context of once, mildly against many times, harshly - is important too. And the left is doing all in its power to erase this context.
I think one part of the split between us is that I don’t view ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ as united and mono-focused as you seem to. I know this isn’t a deep observation, but both are vague conceptions that consist of a spectrum from mostly normal people sliding into fringe radicals. The vast majority of Biden supporters did not riot in 2020, nor did the majority of Trump supporters break into the capital. But both will hem-and-haw about how bad their respective actions were.
I’ve happily conceded that there is left wing bias against calling out themselves, and I think that there’s an equivalent bias on the right. It’s a general human instinct to protect the in-group. I don’t see this systematic pattern ‘for decades’ of the left doing things equivalent to J6, nor this grand narrative of it being a propaganda tactic. If you disagree then please show me. I realize you think it’s obvious and want to sneer at me, but understand I’m trying hard not to do the same.
That’s a direct reference to an instance in the article you shared where protestors occupied a state capital and were chanting/screaming.
If she was shot on the lawn outside the capital for yelling at a cop or something, this would be a fair comparison. But Babbitt was climbing through a broken window into a secure area with armed guards on the other side. I’m honestly curious what you think the correct course of action was there. Let her climb through and start scuffling with her and others who also come through? Fall back further?
This also highlights something I’ve been trying to say- I feel like you are making some comparison and saying “See? They’re the same” without showing that there share some unique commonalities. I think you have generally pointed at left wing violence at protests, but I’ve tried to differentiate that from J6 by pointing to the specifics of the goal, scale, and significance.
Enough of them did to cause billions of damage, and enough of them did for me to see Amazon delivery trucks looted on the streets of my city, within walking distance of my house, and downtown storefronts being all boarded up. For me, instantly ending up in a third-world country where there's no law, safety or security is a very significant and unique event. The vast majority of Biden supporters saw it as a positive development and encouraged and protected the rioters, including Biden's VP personally fundraising to help them avoid responsibility.
"Equivalent" in what way? They occupied government buildings many times. They fought with the police many times. They disrupted official proceedings many times. They perpetrated political violence many times. Did they do exactly the same, to the tiny detail, as happened in J6? No, some details were different. The general picture though is consistent - the left has been deploying political violence - including breaching into government buildings, disrupting official procedures, fighting the police, setting fire to government and commercial buildings, and more - many times, for a long time. You can pretend not to see it as much as you want, it's still exists.
From Byrd's side? Doing absolutely nothing. The protesters were removed from that area by the police in very short time after shooting. If some people in the building felt unsafe, he could escort them into a different place. But there was no threat justifying using lethal force there.
There would be no scuffling - he is a large strong male and she is a 5 feet 115lbs woman, he could literally subdue her with one hand tied behind his back, while drinking a beer and tap-dancing at the same time. Not to mention she did not present any threat at all at the time of shooting.
No, I am saying they are way, way worse. But they are treated way, way better. The treatment of J6 protesters that did no worse than just walking through the Capitol or adjacent lawn, while often being directed there by the police, is nothing short of horrendous if you read the individual stories. People literally got their lives ruined for walking for a couple of minutes through a building. It is absolutely infuriating what the FBI did to them, and even more infuriating is that they did it for partisan political reasons only - most of those people weren't hardcore criminals (or any criminals at all), did not harbor and harmful intent and did not cause any damage. Objectively, their "crimes" deserved a ticket and a small fine, at best. Sure, there were some that fought the police and broke stuff - but the vast majority did not. And they were treated same or worse than Gitmo terrorists - they left actually cared about what was done to Gitmo terrorists and criticized the government for treating them too harshly, but J6 people were subjected to horrendous abuse which did not get any pushback to that at all. The only correct way to stop this abuse - even though nothing can undo the damage by now - is to pardon them all. Yes, that means also that a small group of people who did commit the violence would be pardoned too - it's a small price to pay for the cessation of this horrible ordeal.
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