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 -
Those students are private individuals. Any policy which cuts off their actions as too intimidating is far more egregious a suppression of speech.
Do you think that "whoever brings more shouters wins" is a stable equilibrium? Will you be willing to defend the same right if it turns out that your ideological enemies can bring more shouters to target you and yours?
First, I was talking about the silent, "intimidating" protest of the Dean's class. The school promised its guest a civil forum, and its failure (or refusal) to control the shouters was deplorable.
Second, yes, I'd defend their right to silently protest my work or politics. Even to shout, so long as I keep my right not to listen. Hurrah for private property.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Threats, probably. This isn't a Rittenhouse scenario.
They had every right to be in that classroom and hallway, to dress how they wanted, and to speak or be silent. Which of those are you going to ban?
All the ones which would be banned or punished if conservatives did them to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
That would be every bit as much a 1A violation. Unless you have some evidence that the courts are, in fact, okay with that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they are interfering with others free speech then it’s proper to have policy to stop that and potential legal liability as the government to not do that.
Nobody saying to block them from having their own meetings or posting on twitter. And even putting flyers up with the other side pictures is probably fine. But the second they interfere with others rights is a different story.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link