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 -
No I meant "to" because I didn't see anything about Alex Jones encouraging others to go inside. I don't know what you're referring to about regularly-scheduled program, it's hard to compare behaviors from different people because people don't act like mimes and do exactly the same thing at the same time at the same place. Best you can do is outline what the relevant factors and dimensions are and then analyze the actions according to that template. Inevitably you're bound to encounter reasonable disagreement throughout that process.
I mean, I agree with basically your entire comment about what we can do. The bit about "regularly-scheduled program" is that if you just look at the screen about this topic, it might on the surface look like everyone is doing this sort of 'best thing', outlining relevant factors, etc. It looks like the normal, ho-hum, program of people doing the best thing. Alternatively, if you just look at the screen about Section 3 disqualification, it might also look on the surface like everyone is doing this sort of 'best thing', outlining relevant factors, etc. But then it just strikes you when you see both of them smashed together. Like, really?! Trump "engaged in insurrection" on one screen, but we appear to have just an entirely different outline of relevant factors on the other screen. Just wild in contrast.
That's how the law works in general. There's enough precedents and opinions laying around that in any given case, you can credibly apply them to make the case go either way; in fact, almost every case has at least one lawyer on each side doing just that. So how do you actually decide the case? By criteria outside the law, which you then justify using the appropriate set of precedents. If you really can't find any which support the thing you want... make something up that sounds all legal-like, building on the closest thing (e.g. the "bad actor" test making Trump's speech not eligible for First Amendment protection).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link