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 view the use of "gang" more anti-cop than anti-black. For example, see these pieces covering the Los Angeles "deputy gangs". That said, it's easy to interpret it in an anti-black sense, and I wonder if it will end up going down the euphemism treadmill like many other words that were at first benign then turned into slurs.
I disagree that this should be standard operating procedure. People should know what happened, and not be restricted to learning about it through second-hand accounts. When you don't let people see video, you end up with wild and unsubstantiated speculation like "Paul Pelosi's attacker was a right-wing MAGA-wearing extremist!" (no, the bodycam footage shows he was just some random dude who decided to break into a house).
I agree with the rest of your points, though; hyping it up in any way is atrocious and disgusting, and in fact all the hubbub around this situation is unnecessary. Protests and riots of any form are unnecessary at best and excessive and damaging at worst.
I thought Paul Pelosi's attacker was a gay lover/drug dealer.
He may have been, however, he has clearly broken in there during the altercation in question. There's exhaustive discussion of the bodycam footage elsewhere in the thread.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link