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 -
10 years later, the moment is here. What will you do, even if just quietly to yourself in your heart?
I actually saw that and my heart just sank. I can kinda sorta understand an attempt to hold teachers to a higher standard, as they are role models and directly involved in childhood indoctrination, so I think some sort of awareness about having to watch what you say is to some degree expected when you enter the field. Academia it's a little less clear-cut because everyone involved is an adult. Personally I don't like it too much there. Famous people is also a bit of a weird area, because they fundamentally (well, certain categories of them at least) rely on people's opinion for their living, so talking about people's opinions of you seems like more or less fair play. All of these examples have at least some logical connection where there is an awareness of responsibility.
Retail? Please. She even works up front, which is, if not quite the most thankless job in a Home Depot (that belongs to overnight and lot crew), it's most definitely the one where you get the most abuse - from management, customers, everybody. I can't even think of a moral justification other than "I just don't like what they said and want them to be punished." It's not like she said anything at work, it's not that she can't help people or do her job properly, but instead it's using corporations as a weapon against private people. There's no symmetry, no proportionality, and of course no heart. Let's distinguish between the wishes of the heart and the concrete actions that affect others, both on her part and on LoTT's part.
I mean, can anyone defend this in an actual way, or is this just pure feelings venting?
Ahem
I'm not going to cry about her prospects. Not when shit like this happened.
This wasn't corporations, this was driving a man to suicide through long-term decentralized harassment, condoned and encouraged by the Democrats.
Call me after one of these people is driven to suicide. Maybe I'll be more willing to listen then. Not now, but maybe then.
Oh yeah, because cycles of vengeance work so well for everyone involved. /s It's precisely that attitude that is fueling this in the first place, the notion that punishment is the only option, that we as a society and as individuals owe nothing to each other, that duty does not exist, that forgiveness is a sign of weakness. No. No. Forgiveness is a method of strength and leveraging the good traits of humanity. Moral high ground is a corrupt phrase because of the implication, but moral integrity is still a cornerstone for human society and greatness. It's okay to let ourselves emotionally indulge in a moment of "they had it coming," but it's incredibly dangerous as well as morally bankrupt to make it into a guiding principle. And online discourse is not the greatest place to start, but it's a place to start. Even here, we should sit up and treat people like people, because we can and because we should. We owe it to each other.
I’ll say this about “moral high grounds” — outside of the moral society created by force to enforce those standards is a fool’s belief. If I’m in a society where stealing is normal, my forgiveness of a thief is not noble, it just makes me a mark. And my refusal to participate in vengeance when there are no legal systems to protect me simply means I’m a walking future crime victim along with any family members too weak to defend themselves from attack.
Duels were not common in the Middle Ages because those people had no moral integrity. They were probably more moral than we are. But in the context of a weak state where your ability to defend your honor in combat was needed for the protection of your clan, you didn’t have much choice. If you let people insult you without some sort of duels or whatever they didn’t see that as integrity, they saw it as cowardly and it was blood in the water.
Now where that leaves us in the current era is a bit murky to me. If we’re entering an era where getting people unemployed for political opinions is a norm, refusing to participate just means you are a walking future victim. And that goes for anything else here. If you aren’t going to fight back, it’s cowardice, not integrity which only make sense in a world where everyone agrees to the norm.
No, it's still noble. It also makes you a mark, but the one does not cancel out the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link