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 Zebra killers also spawned books and TV specials back in the day. And I am unclear what your discussion of crime rates has to do with anything.
Yes, if the NYT repeatedly reminded people of X, more people would know about X. What does that have to do with Emmitt Till?
Earlier you had suggested that the Zebra Killings are not discussed in media because they lack "historical" relevance rather than the story being memory-holed for uncomfortable political reasons. Modern political issues can be given "historical" salience if there is motivation to do so. Bizarro Right Wing-NYT: "Activists say black on white crime is rare, the grandchildren of Zebra Killings victims beg to differ" could be used to promote racial profiling. In this scenario, activists would have statistics on their side, but enough repetition leads to a distorted view of the world.
Emmitt Till is relevant because the story of his murder gets reinvigorated every time progressives want to push for Criminal Justice Reform or to tie it in with some tragic police shooting, giving the story narrative throughline. Between him and George Floyd, people mentally have an anchor when it comes to lynching and police brutality. Vivid stories of "black on white" violence exist but don't receive the same level of obsessive coverage because it would lead the general public to have more right wing views of policing/crime. I don't think obsessive coverage of "black on white" violence is good because it would enflame racial tensions and because they account for a relatively small number of crimes. However, you can't get mad a people noticing the double standards in coverage.
No, I did NOT talk about why the Zebra Killings are not discussed in media, because that was not the question. The OP was talking about why "few outside the US have heard of the Zebra murders . . Yet practically everyone in the entire Anglosphere has heard of Emmett Till," and opining that it must be because of some sort of racial bias.
I simply pointed out that OP's unspoken premise -- that the events are otherwise indistinguishable* -- is incorrect.
*Actually, OP claims that the Zebra killings were "worse," apparently because, not being an American, he does not understand the historical context, symbolism, etc of the Emmitt Till case; which was "worse" is irrelevant. The Emmitt Till case is well known because it ended up having historical significance, not because it was particularly "bad" -- there were certainly worse lynchings than his; as far as I know, for example, he was not castrated. And, at the time, the fact that he was a Northerner was probably more significant that how "bad" the event was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, even a movie The Zebra Killer (1974). In which a Black detective, after his Black girlfriend is raped, finds that the murders are commited by a white man in Blackface.
And you think that that movie -- by a director whose oeuvre includes "Three on a Meathook" and "Asylum of Satan" -- is representative because ...? Look, I know a lot of people here are very young, and hence have no memory of events like the Zebra killings, but the idea that somehow they were ignored is just wrong.
I literally went to the Wikipedia page and saw 20 years of people trying to remove references to the nation of Islam and the perps being black, with the page being left orphaned with no links to other articles referencing it.
Yes, it has been deliberately memory-holed to the point that assigning reading on it got a college professor mobbed and punished. Are you trying to claim it was not suppressed?
So, apparently some Nation of Islam types have repeatedly gone on Wikipedia and (unsuccessfully) tried to remove references to the Nation of Islam, and THAT is supposed to be evidence that "the Man" has suppressed knowledge of the Zebra Killings?
All I know is that if a topic is included in a 2019 "San Francisco Trivia Quiz" as well as in a 2017 iteration thereof, as well as a 2012 feature on SF's crime history, all published by a website established by the San Francisco Chronicle and which is "the second most popular news site in California, after the Los Angeles Times", then, no, knowledge of that topic has not been suppressed.
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