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 -
Historically, leftist violence translates into rightist takeovers. Either an authoritarian faction within the left (Stalin within the Bolsheviks) or a rightist ally backstabs (mullahs and Muslim Brotherhood against Arab socialists) or a conservative swoops in to reign over the ashes of the Left (Franco? Fujimori? probably other examples).
Political violence benefits the left only if we view the effect of violence as 'no consequences'. In terms of achieving practical results, it needs a rightist element to coopt the cause of, or exploit the damage caused by, the leftist violence. At no point do the organizers of leftist violence seem to have achieved their stated objectives.
Leftist violence currently is temporary chaos, violence that flares which can be cleaned up. Chavez and Stalin draped themselves in leftist skinsuits but were able to wield the power of a state to effect real change (damage).
The left is insidious, but the right is where true power will be exercised. And the left is blind to wolves amongst its flock.
[Population-level observation ahead]
Leftist violence is female-coded, and rightist violence is male-coded, almost like they're the same thing and always have been. You see the same shit in abusive marriages; the woman throws shit and has tantrums, might slap or hit the man, but none of her goals are accomplished unless the man gives in (this is ignoring "split up" as an option).
This is why men, as a general rule, don't hit women- because their superpower is that they're the only ones with actual power. So they'll bear the occasional slap and punch and thrown vase from their wives when she doesn't get her way, but at the end of the day he's the one who decides which checks get written. As such, this violence is the 'no consequences, or results in token concessions' type.
But if a man discovers that he can use [individually impotent but] violent women to abuse other men on his behalf (which is how the Inner and Outer Parties of 1984 function), then things get a lot more interesting. Which is why authoritarian movements tend to use female-coded language- "equity" and "safety" are the two popular ones- so that the men who would normally and trivially resist simply fail to show up, making the opposition easier to rout.
This is Genesis 1 stuff. The serpent must corrupt the woman in order for the man to eat the fruit.
It's hard for me to see why these words are "female-coded". For example, they were explicitly two of the main reasons for the founding fathers of the US to launch their revolution, and I don't know anyone who sees the founding fathers as female-coded figures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link