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 -
The line from Trump's speech to the riot is that Trump's speech is a but-for cause of the riot. If Trump doesn't assemble the mob and tell them to go to the Capitol, they don't go to the Capitol. No mob, no riot.
The questions "Did Donald Trump incite a riot?" and "Can Donald Trump be criminally prosecuted for inciting a riot, given the 1st amendment?" are not the same question - "incite" has an ordinary English meaning, and on the ordinary English meaning of "incite", Trump so did. The 1st amendment is, for the obvious good reasons, over-protective of political speech - it isn't surprising that it is possible to incite a riot while (just) staying within the boundary of protected speech. Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for inciting a riot, and he isn't being prosecuted for inciting a riot (both the Federal and Georgia indictments focus on his various attempts to overturn the election before Jan 6th). That doesn't mean he didn't incite a riot.
Growing up in the UK, our pro-free speech tradition has tended to rely on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for the moral (not legal) limits of free speech in contexts that look like incitement.
Trump assembled an excited mob at the Ellipse, told them that the politicians in the Capitol were stealing an election, and then told them to go to the Capitol and "fight". On the John Stuart Mill test, he has (just) exceeded the bounds of protected free speech. Under the Brandenberg test, he (just) stayed inside it. On this point, the law is on Donald Trump's side, so I am going to pound the facts. Donald Trump did, in fact, incite a riot on January 6th.
There's direct video evidence of one of the people who enabled entrance into the Capitol talking about how they're going to have to go and break into the Capitol building the night before the actual riot. This same person actually skipped Trump's speech so they could help get people into the Capitol and start a riot - so you're just flat out wrong here. How can Trump's speech incite a riot when at least one of the people involved in that riot spoke loudly about their plans the night previously, and then missed the speech entirely so they could facilitate people getting into the Capitol building? This breaks the "but-for" already - if Trump just said "Welp, looks like I lost, everyone can go home" there's at least one rioter who would have already been in the process of breaking in!
More options
Context Copy link
Can you have it both ways, that people were convicted of planning the root and also Trump spontaneously incited it among people who otherwise would not have rioted?
More options
Context Copy link
Has there ever been an example of a professional sports organization being held liable for the riot after a team won or lost a game, and the fans damaged parts of the city?
More options
Context Copy link
I have a different opinion on “he incited a riot”. I view the riot as justified. I loved Jan 6. The 2020 election was illegitimate in my opinion. Far too many Democratic norms were violated. I also think elites deserved a riot on their land as they spent 2020 inciting riots across the US. The anger that caused the riot on Jan 6 was caused by the left not Trump.
By the standard you are using for Trump isn’t Kamala guilty for Jan 6? She was a primary leader of all the justified grievances that blew up on Jan 6. Sure Trump gathered people there on Jan 6 and led a protest but all the anger that really incited the riot I believe came from Kamela’s words and actions.
More options
Context Copy link
Hosting a protest is protected political activity.
Trump should not have held this rally. He is in fact an idiot who should not have done half the things he did. But he should not be criminally liable for hosting this rally.
More options
Context Copy link
Sit down. You lot are literally siccing police on people for saying men aren't women on Twitter.
You can take issue with current UK free speech norms without being antagonistic and personal because someone happens to be disagreeing with you.
(@the_nybbler's post, for example, was fine.)
Oh dear, looks like I'll be the one taking a seat. Sorry, I guess I was trying too hard to be funny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Even if (arguendo) I accept that as true, it does not matter. It is not sufficient for President's Trump's speech to have caused a lawful action that was a necessary precursor to the riot. His speech must have been directed towards causing the riot.
And that's true in the sense of ordinary meaning as well as the law.
In the UK, your pro-free speech tradition ranges from absent to extinct, and that is itself a cause of the United States's pro-free speech tradition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link