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 -
I think I disagree.
Yes, there's a trivial sense that we aren't going to see DeSantis sued to destroy or dissolve his real estate business operating under New York State laws, given that he doesn't have one. I'm rather hoping that's not the core and central argument for your claim. Political actors have made no small number of attacks, both legal and social, against people who did nothing, or did nothing legally wrong; that fraud case against DeSantis is just the funniest. Federal politicians have been lost their seats and been convicted for allegations that didn't make sense and weren't true.
Political actors are neither unified nor rational nor solely motivated by effectiveness. Their preferred approach will vary according to the person and situation, but they'll also vary based on personal flippery, on the motivations of volunteers and donors, and on the recognition of norms and fear of retribution, among other things. And many of these, most critically, will be more important than the actual guilt or perceived vulnerability of the target.
That's why for Trump -- with all of his clear and tremendous faults -- also got slapped with a wide variety of aggressive lawsuits based on hilariously false claims and/or with no interest in the facts. It's very unclear that this will be different for anyone else; it's not even clear that the trial results would be tremendously different.
Yes, this didn't happen historically. There were a ton of calls among progressives to jail (or try in the Hague) Dubya, but it never happened. But it's been sixteen years since the end of the Dubya presidency. Even ultimately 'unsuccessful' attacks have turned out to work, progressive efforts to take over institutions that would defang or blunt these attacks have been wildly successful, and we've learned the hard way that a small industry can operate solely around building this class of tool.
More options
Context Copy link