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 -
Obergefell is the poster child for legislating from the bench. That’s not the job my tax dollars pay the judicial branch to do. Defying the constitution is fine, but I guess defying a court order is just a bridge too far.
I don’t care much for the dissident discussion, it’s just semantics. I’d say she was definitionally a “dissident”, and she was jailed for it. But Bill Ayers is also a “dissident”. The difference in their treatment at the hands of The Law is very instructive.
It isn't about a bridge too far. People who defy court orders end up in prison for contempt. Had Bill Ayers defied a court order, he would have been jailed for contempt. Just as members of the Chicago Seven were, and members of the Black Panthers were, and plenty of other Ayers-adjacent people. Getting upset because Kim Davis was put in prison for contempt for refusing to comply with a court order is asking that she receive preferential treatment.
Sometimes. It often depends who’s doing the defying.
My word! Well it’s a good thing he only committed a bombing campaign and didn’t defy a court order! Seems like bombing, looting, and burning the possessions of normies isn’t too big of a deal but god help you if you cross a lawyer…
I won’t deny this. My rules applied unfairly > your rules applied unfairly and all that. In my view one side has gotten preferential treatment for quite a while now and excuse me if I find it a bit hard to believe you wouldn’t be a little upset if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that we both want someone’s rules applied fairly but it’s been a while since that’s been the case in my eyes.
She crossed a judge, not a lawyer, a very important distinction since we are talking about a govt employee refusing to obey the law.
I confess I don’t see the relevance. As I noted, plenty of his compatriots who "crossed a judge" were jailed for contempt. And, as I understand it, the only reason that Ayers was not prosecuted is that the govt tainted the evidence by obtaining it via grossly illegal methods, ie, COINTEL. Note that other Weather Underground members went to jail, as did many Black Panthers and other leftists. And the charges were dropped in 1974, when your "team" was in office, You are pointing to Ayers as if he were the rule, not the exception.
Doesn't it give you pause that people on the other team are equally convinced that it is their enemies who have been given preferential treatment? Every claim I have seen on either side has been blatant cherry picking, or complete misunderstanding of what is going on, or both. If their evidence were as weak as your reliance on Ayers, would you be a convinced?
The question is not whether I would be upset were the shoe on the other foot. The question is what I would do about. It would not be to excuse wrongful behavior by "my team" in order to even the scales somehow.
No, I don’t think we do. At least I don’t think you want that very badly, compared to me. Principles matter, and anyone who believes in principles should be bending over backwards to ensure that those with whom we disagree are treated fairly. The alternative that you espouse is a one-way ticket to banana republic land.
We’re already there, man. You’re just on the side of the republic.
Yes, that must be it. Because 50 years ago, the govt fucked up its investigation of Bill Ayers, and a couple of years ago Kim Davis was treated exactly how everyone who defies a court order is treated. How could I have been so blind?
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