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 -
Because some people are still stupid enough to maintain a belief in equal protection under the law.
A massive amount of the popular consensus against the Jan 6th protesters was secured through coordinated lies about the death of Officer Sicknick, which was in fact a tragic accident, but was presented for months as a deliberate murder in order to demonize everyone who attended the protest. Likewise, there is zero reason to describe the chaotic destruction of public property, which was without doubt deliberately planned, as a "tragic accident". People did dangerous, stupid things on purpose, and fucked a person up so bad they nearly died. If I rob a bank and fire a bunch of rounds to keep the cops' heads down, and one of those bullets hits a kid in the gut, that's a crime, not a "tragic accident".
But of course, as this as in all things, framing is everything.
No, it isn't. We have ample evidence that the authorities play favorites in their enforcement of the law. Having seen that evidence, it is no longer reasonable expect us to grant them the benefit of the doubt when outcomes differ. Maybe you're right, and partisan motives have nothing to do with it this time. But they burned the trust required to accept that explanation, and nothing was done, and so the trust is no longer a viable option.
Trump supporters don't see riot organizers getting 13-year sentences for approved riots. Why would they accept 13-year sentences for this riot? The correct sentence is a night in jail to polish the radical credentials and arrange good photo-ops, and then a polite release.
You're thinking of the Angela Davis track, where one conspires in an armed attack on our lawful institutions resulting in multiple murders, which leads to tenured positions at premiere educational institutions. Easy mistake to make.
Equal protection implies equal crimes.
I am not basing my condemnation on Officer Sicknick. He’s not mentioned in these extreme charges, either. If anyone was charged in his death, I haven’t seen it—what was the resulting sentence?
Your bank robbery hypothetical smuggled in an innocent bystander instead of a willing accomplice. I’d think you would endorse the cops saying “live by the sword…” rather than demanding justice for a bank robber wounded by his conspirators. And it’s not like accidental injuries are a surefire way to get charged.
As for Dr. Davis, I observe she was in fact charged and acquitted. Perhaps the police bit off more than they could chew, charging her with kidnapping and murder? Or the CPUSA played dirty by defending her with jury selection and expert witnesses? If you’d like to argue that it was all witness intimidation and political pressure, be my guest—it’s always interesting to read about the wild days of the 1970s.
The Jan. 6 actions are obviously not the same as any of these. They were less violent, more coordinated, and targeted different people. You can’t find BLM protestors getting away with 40 USC §5104(e) for the same reason that you won’t see Proud Boys getting bargains for statue-toppling: they aren’t committing the same crimes. Different crimes, different charges, different outcomes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link