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 -
Define 'unmolested'. If you go out and say "I think eating babies is good and we should legalize it" and as a result everyone decides you're a creep and ostracizes you, have you been 'molested'? If the answer is no, we're just quibbling over what should get you ostracized. If the answer is 'yes', how do we reconcile a conception of freedom of speech that requires people to listen you with the listeners' own freedoms?
Twitter is not the public square. It is a popular private forum. You have no more 'natural right' to use it than you do to use the bathroom at the Carlton Club. If Twitter wants to ban people - whether for transphobia or orchestrating harassment or criticizing Musk - that's their prerogative.
It can be economically beneficial to have access to Twitter for business purposes, but that doesn't oblige Twitter to grant you access any more than Amazon or FB or spacebattles.com. Today Twitter unveiled a policy prohibiting linking to other social media. This is probably going to be a mutually harmful policy, but it is well within Twitter's right to make.
In the United States, which we were clearly talking about, discourse around free speech revolves almost entirely around the moderation policies of social media sites and only very occasionally touches on actual legal restraints or state violations of free speech. I am not a fan of British policies but they are not the policies of the United States.
My answer is yes and it doesn't require you to listen. It does require you however not to destroy the lives of baby-eating supporters by refusing to do business with them. Ostracism without due process I don't see as a legitimate form of punishment.
There are only two equilibriums I see here: either we go for the no and do pure libertarian contractualism and abolish the CRA, you don't have to bake the cake and "niggers need not apply" is allowed. Or we go for the yes, which is my preference, and the State actively prevents you from dissolving things like employment contracts on political grounds as it does in my country.
De jure nonsense. It is the public square, that you refuse to acknowledge it has become so because it is privately structured means nothing.
Besides, I don't recognize the difference between public and private institutions as meaningful. Especially at that size. Twitter, much like the NYT, is a part of the US government.
You easily forget about obscenity and "prurient interest".
These are contradictory statements. If I can't disassociate from baby eaters because I find them objectionable, I am in effect required to listen to them.
The US has an equilibrium on the subject: there is a defined list of protected classes which you cannot use for a basis for discrimination. Despite the hand-wringing over Twitter's moderation policies from people like Hawley or Cruz (or Trump), there is little appetite on the American right for making political affiliation or views a protected class. You may see it floated occasionally in an op-ed, but no one in Congress has taken up the torch. Likely because making political affiliation a protected class would be materially costly to Republicans in ways far more substantial than the gains (making political affiliation a protected class isn't going to stop you from getting banned from Twitter for violating content policies or inciting harassment, but is it going to effectively require non-partisan redistricting).
Expand on this. What makes it the public square? This invariably seems to be made as an unsupported assumption. As far as I can tell, the unstated argument is that Twitter providing access to a large audience, but the same can be said for almost any successful social media platform or traditional media outlet.
(To say nothing of the idea of there being a singular public square being ridiculous)
I'm not sure what your point is here? My list of legal exceptions to free speech rights in the US was not intended to be exhaustive, and Obscenity is not a major element of contemporary discourse around free speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hilariously Wikipedia included "without fear of social sanction" in its definition of freedom of speech. This was eventually narrowed to the current definition of only legal restrictions to prevent reactionary elements from using it as cover
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link