site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That seems to be a complete misrepresentation of the ad. The ad is narrated by Nate Boyer, who is apparently an ex-Green Beret and a football player who played one preseason game for the Seahawks. This is the narration of the ad in its entirety:

"I'm Nate Boyer. I served as a Green Beret. The first time that I heard about Colin Kaepernick I thought, the guy hated America. I chose to do an open letter to Colin, and Colin ended up reaching out. He said, 'Would you kneel with me?' I said, 'I can't do that, but I will stand next to you.' You don't always have to like how people choose to express their freedoms, but we were both willing to just have a conversation. That's what freedom of speech is. You know, the right to speak out. That's what we fought for."

The visuals are brief clips of the two of them, a picture of someone holding a BLM sign, and a picture of someone holding a sign which says, "We [heart] our police."

That's it. How you can interpret that anodyne message of "everyone should have the right to speak / let's have a conversation" as an endorsement of Kaepernick's message, or as "conveying that Kapernick didn't intend the protest to disrespect the military or the country" seems quite incomprehensible to me.

Finally, you are certainly entitled to your opinion re whether Kaepernick's kneeling was not protected because it was really a time/place/manner restriction, FIRE filed an amicus brief in favor of the high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field, so their position that Kaepernick's speech should be protected is perfectly consistent with their past position, which tends to undermine the claim that they are somehow becoming woke.

The point of the ad seems to be getting liberals to agree that free speech & liberalism are still good ideas.

How you can interpret that anodyne message of "everyone should have the right to speak / let's have a conversation" as an endorsement of Kaepernick's message, or as "conveying that Kapernick didn't intend the protest to disrespect the military or the country" seems quite incomprehensible to me.

The part of the narration that says "the first time I heard about Colin Kaepernick, I thought the guy hated America" is immediately followed by an image you left out, text saying "meet Green Beret who advised Colin Kapernick to take a knee." It seems pretty clear to me the intent of the juxtaposition is "Colin Kapernick does not actually hate America, a veteran told him this was an appropriate way to protest." Thus "make Kapernick's protest sympathetic and palatable" is an accurate description.

So, you only watched the first five seconds?

How you can interpret that anodyne message of "everyone should have the right to speak / let's have a conversation" as an endorsement of Kaepernick's message, or as "conveying that Kapernick didn't intend the protest to disrespect the military or the country" seems quite incomprehensible to me.

Are you unfamilair with rhetoric of deplatforming enthusiasts? Insinuating that not banning someone means the owners actually agree with him, is their bread and butter.