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 -
It's actually even worse than that. Sometime not a long time ago, I think on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, George Bush Jr. gave a speech at the memorial site of the Flight 93 crash, and used that occasion to specifically condemn Ashli Babbit as a dangerous right-wing extremist terrorist, and with that she condemned and dishonored a woman who volunteered to the army after 9/11 because she wanted to answer his patriotic call to action. This means she was duped by, and driven into debt bondage by, and eventually shot dead by the Deep State, and she did all this in the belief that she was a patriot. This is where we're at. (I've heard this on a right-wing dissident podcast.)
This speech?
That’s as close as he gets to calling her out. It’s vague enough that it could be referring to BLM riots, too! A rather vanilla call for unity.
I don’t think “hey, trashing government buildings is bad” makes for a very hot take. Especially not from the guy who ushered in our current security state.
Due to the reference to the disdain for pluralism and defilement of national symbols, I say it's rather clear he's referring to J6. But anyway, thanks for digging up the primary source. It seems I was somewhat mislead, but only somewhat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bush chose to signal his loyalty to the powers that be over the impotent right wing. Given his potential status as a pariah, it was probably a wise, and entirely self-serving, action.
But I doubt it was necessary. Isn't he basically a pensioner who paints portraits of dogs as a pastime? Who was ever going to accuse him of being tied to J6 protesters in any way? What does he have to lose, or prove?
Social shunning. My impression is that most people in the big leagues would lose most of their social connections if they ever said or did something that goes against the grain too far. Money isn't really the focus for most when you're that high up, it's getting to sit at the Cool Kids Table 😎.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly my point: J6 got GWB to "disrespect the troops". Respect for troops was the single political legitimacy card that guy had left when he left office. And he just used it up...for that.
Think about British police in India, or Alabama police swinging their clubs in the 60s. Sure the police won physically. And yes the protestors had more sympathetic backing and portrayal in the media than MAGA does. But the major source of legitimacy for British rule in a colony like India was that their administrative services were considered far more restrained and civilized than anything a third world country like India could muster on its own. Gandhi's activism forced that frame to break, revealing savagery where cool competence was assumed by most of the public. Babbit likewise did something almost impossible, made the shooting on an unarmed white woman by a black guy the lead story on CNN for weeks (something there had been a lot of but never mentioned, or if so only briefly then memoryholed). And they had to figure out how to get their audience to cheer it on.
If you want a white pill: Babbit getting shot on the Capitol steps easily did one thousand times as much to advance her values then getting blown up in Kabul would have done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link