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 -
I mean, the US is probably paying some DEI consultancy bills still too, but it doesn't say much about the direction of travel or the intended end point.
Where I got the idea is just listening to the drumbeat of criticism of Ukraine and praise for Russia, and the US's willingness to throw away all the bargaining chips immediately. Has a technical alliance emerged, no. Is it apparent to Europe that they now face a transformed world after 80 years of relative confidence in the US's ideological preferences, yes.
Regarding religious freedoms in Europe, I think that American concerns are pretty much bullshit and an excuse, and that if Trump introduced things like protest exclusion zones outside, I dunno, military hospitals instead of abortion centres (such things were seemingly the thing JD Vance is mainly exercised about at a time of grave geopolitical danger) ... if Trump introduced those then the same people complaining about Europe's restrictions wouldn't bat an eyelid.
If the United States had ended sanctions and weapons deliveries, they would have thrown away their bargaining chips (although not really since they could resume them both at a moment's notice). But instead they are expecting concessions from Russia. That's how bargaining works.
I think that wise European actors (the French) have more or less always understood that American ideological preferences (or perhaps more relevantly, interests in Europe) were contingent and not permanent.
Certainly I don't think J.D. Vance giving a speech is at the level of the United States threatening to destroy the British economy (which we did in 1956 after they invaded Egypt) so I'm not sure I buy this idea you seem to have that the United States has just been a team player to Europe since the end of World War Two.
I mean I dunno what to tell you, it might be that it's an excuse for the administration, but the bottom-up sentiment is real. My recollection is that mainstream right-wing media in the United States has been complaining about this for a long time. Certainly I've complained about this sort of thing on here.
Aren't military hospitals likely to be on military bases where your rights are already restricted...? I assure you if Trump followed the U.K.'s lead of cracking down on silently standing outside of abortion clinics many righties in the United States would be angry. But of course one of Trump's first acts was pardoning anti-abortion protestors.
To reply to a couple of other points, the bargaining chips they gave away are (1) saying ahead of the negotiations that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions, and (2) saying ahead of the negotiations that NATO membership is off the table. These things may not be achievable but it seems malevolent for the US to say so unilaterally before the negotiations.
And whether Vance's speech was at the level of 1956 ... I admit I don't know the story there. And what I do know as a matter of fact is that Europeans are interpreting what's coming out of the US as seismic shift in US policy. Assuming they don't wind this back, it is shaping up to be a realignment on a scale much bigger (and frankly scarier) than anything in my lifetime, though I guess I wouldn't know about 70 years ago.
Maybe, but on the other hand it might have been necessary to get Russia to even come to the table, I'm not certain. Particularly on the second point it might not be in perceived US interests to attempt to give Ukraine NATO membership.
This seems plausible, but it seems to me that if they were caught completely flat-footed by this it was because of willful ignorance.
Good. The United States cannot fight Russia and China at the same time alone. European NATO should have the resources to deter Russia single-handedly or with limited support from the US at most, the US should not need to hold its hand every step of the way (this is entirely consistent with the US being an enthusiastic NATO partner and assisting with deterring Russia, by the by).
As far as Vance criticizing Europe for suppressing political parties, free speech, and immigration, I think on balance he is correct on the merits, at least directionally. Now, with that being said, I am not European, so I do hesitate to tell other nations what to do. But this is part of my reflexive American isolationism and if you like the part of my reflexive American isolationism where I say "you know what, Europe can do what they want with their own internal politics" you won't like the part where I say "you know what, Europe can do what they want with their own external politics."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Re military hospitals, I had meant that I can imagine protests being banned outside some sensitive location in the US, especially if they are held repeatedly, are disturbing to the staff and visitors at a vulnerable moment, and are in contradiction of a court order. This is what happened outside a UK abortion centre, and that Vance is furious about. Obviously the same thing wouldn't happen outside a US abortion centre in the current climate, my point is that an equal infringement of freedoms at a different location not so important to christian fundamentalists would not cause any outrage, so if that's true, it's not at actually freedom that is at issue.
A military hospital was just my stab at an example location where the American public might not like to see repeated protests held.
The Westboro Baptist Church was A Thing for a while- nobody suggested bans on protests at military funerals.
I wondered if you were right and this is the first thing google turned up – protests at military funerals were in fact banned in nine states and twenty others at least considered doing the same. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It appears that Scotland is banning silent prayer which is a far cry from violent or even noisy demonstrations.
Christians in America have been concerned about the infringement of religious freedom in the military and even – despite the rightwing/business alliance – in the workplace. If the VA forbid silent prayer inside of their medical centers right-wing evangelicals would be livid (and in fact every so often issues like this crop up in the military and the right wing Christian evangelical/fundamentalist types get Big Mad about it). Now, I do think it's true that righties and Christians, like everyone else, often aren't perfectly principled. But I also don't think that having e.g. in-group bias means you are insincere .
That's a wilful misunderstanding of the law invented by the Telegraph – the most extreme case that might fall under the legislation would be people praying in a window visible from the abortion clinic with the intention of influencing the patients. I don't actually agree with the law but it's clearly been made in order to deal with persistent protesters causing upset to patients, not to criminalise what people do in their own heads.
From my linked article:
Is it your position that the police officer here got this from the Telegraph, or that this is some sort of hoax?
Yes – in the United States we generally frown on banning peaceful expression even if it upsets people. And while perhaps some of this is a "cultural differences" thing, I think that Vance and Americans more broadly are correct about the need for free speech, particularly in a democratic society. Cutting off free speech is bad for society because it cuts management classes off from authentic feedback. (It's darkly comic to see Germany cracking down on right-wing extremism when, as I understand it, cracking down on right-wing extremism in the 1930s did not stop and may have actually aided Hitler's rise.)
I'm not aware of any crackdown on right-wing extremism in 1930s germany. There was Hitler's Beer Hall putsch in 1923, but he got off easy, one year in prison for an attempted coup with loss of life.
Mea culpa, I probably should have said "1920s" instead, as Hitler came to power in 1933, although I assume some of the censorship technically lasted into the 1930s.
On the crackdown in the 1920s I'll let FIRE do the talking.
I despise hate speech laws, but an argument can be made that a few hundred dollar fines and maybe 3 weeks in prison for 30 counts of hate speech over 10 years, is too mild. What would Stalin have thought of this "crackdown"? Where are the cracked heads? Starting with Hitler, of course. The man was an awoved enemy of the state, had caused deaths in trying to overturn it, and he was let go with a slap on the wrist because he had 'noble intentions'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean another poster just said you didn't ban Westboro Baptist Church and it turns out many states actually did ban protests at funerals, so I'm not even certain if it's true that the US views protests strongly differently than the UK, it just has different values about what deserves banning.
The silent vigil story is true but refers to people doing so intentionally to influence/harrass patients around the clinic, not to people doing it privately in their homes.
Can you give some examples of things Blue Tribers wish to protest through silent vigil without signs or messages, where you believe a ban on such protest is similarly understandable?
I'm not sure I understand your request? Silent praying abortion protesters do generally have signs with them btw, though I'm not sure about the specific one Vance was mentioning. Reading between the lines, though, maybe you're thinking it's a big difference between banning silent prayer and the signage of the Westboro Baptist Church, and therefore represents a difference of kind between the UK and the US attitudes toward freedom? If so, maybe, but it's a marginal and for my money irrelevant one given everything else going on in the world.
To answer your question literally, no, I don't think blue tribers typically use prayer as a form of protest. The only example I can think of at all is the silent walks that were held to protest the community neglect that led to the Grenfell fire disaster in west London. These protests were calling for higher safety standards and community cohesion so at leaning blue tribe even if not a clean example. (These should obviously not be banned.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is actually not about what deserves banning but what US 1st Amendment law would call a "time/place/manner" restriction. There are a lot of TPM restrictions. Banning a viewpoint outside of incitement and the like is regarded very skeptically. Of course you could construe the UK's regulations as a TPM restriction, but even so (without breaking out Wikipedia 1A caselaw) I think analogous ones in the US would not fly. And since you agree it's not a good law, surely you agree it's not above criticism!
Yes, in the United States it is generally speaking not illegal to influence people. Major European countries do not seem to share this view.
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
More options
Context Copy link