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 -
The NYT has credibility because they are among the definers of credibility. The truth doesn't matter; if you go against the NYT you're automatically wrong, among anyone who counts. Think of it like the BATF and machine guns. Sure, you know that a shoelace isn't a machine gun and I know a shoelace isn't a machine gun, but if the BATF says a shoelace is a machine gun it is, and anyone with a shoelace is liable for prosecution. And the prosecutors will prosecute and the judge will go along and so will the higher courts and no amount of pointing out that it's a shoelace will save you from jail time. And to add insult to injury, if and when all this commences, all those law-n-order conservatives who agreed that indeed a shoelace was not a machine gun will say "Well, what did you expect? You knew a shoelace was a machine gun, BATF said so." They don't actually believe a shoelace is a machine gun, but they believe in institutions and the institutions said it was.
Same with the NYT. What they say is truth will be taken as truth, by anyone who matters. Even if it's patently ridiculous.
Somehow I suspect that it is hyperbole and not what you actually believe, but I am not really sure.
note that it is distinct "shoelace is machine gun"
"triggering multiple guns at once in weird way counts as machine gun" is far more defensible and reasonable than "shoelace is machine gun"
(and yes, trying to legislate definition of things where border is fluid and with adverse groups will result in a lot of stupid shit, but less stupid than "shoelace is machine gun")
OK, that parts makes sense and I can easily imagine someone interpreting maximally evilly.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? He doesn't seem to be saying anything unreasonable.
Maybe should be more pessimistic, but I would bet that declaring shoelace to be machine gun would not pass. Declaring nonmachine gun as a machine gun? Likely.
Declaring shoelace as a machine gun? Would not reach court or would be squashed there.
What you don't realized but Hlynka does, is the shoelace thing isn't something I pulled out of my butt; it's a meme based on an actual BATF ruling. As for courts, what you're missing is the point here -- deference. What BATF says goes, even if it's crazy sauce. And one problem with conservatism is they accept the legitimacy of the institutions even when they are captured by their enemies. So there's no help there.
I am definitely unaware
What was the actual ruling? Have they ruled that actual shoelace was a machine gun?
They later changed their mind. But they've made other rulings which stretch the law (though not as much).
OK, that is amazing and hilarious and absurd and actually case of "they ruled that actual shoelace was a machine gun".
I am amazed and worried at that someone managed to write and send this reply.
I was honestly unaware of this, thanks for making me aware of this.
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