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 -
Scott posted Lukianoff And Defining Cancel Culture. He takes one of the given definitions of cancel culture and tries to see how it applies to edge cases, and whether it makes sense as a definition. I thought the comments on the slatestarcodex reddit thread were pretty good. I tried to post a synthesis of the ideas I got while reading the comments:
Cancel culture is speaking about and coordinating your disassociation with a person.
You have the right to not associate with people. You should feel free to exercise that right when you personally notice them doing something you don't like.
To avoid being a part of cancel culture:
Supplemental section.
Applying these to Scott's examples:
A1-A6 are not cancel culture. The actor is taking personal steps to change their association with someone they don't like.
A7-A12 are cancel culture. The actor is trying to coordinate and spread their disassociation with someone.
The other ones are a bit more complex.
B1-B2 The university admin isn't really the prime source of "cancel culture" in this example. It is the newspaper that is trying to publish a juicy story. I think the university admin is fine to resist as much as they feel comfortable resisting, but is not obligated to resist at all. The newspaper is bad, and you should cancel your subscription from that newspaper (and only tell the newspaper why you are cancelling).
B3-B5 It is cancel culture to write the article and focus it on the grad student or any particular person as the problem. If you are able to anonymize the grad student and others involved then it is not very cancel culture. If others then dig deeper and de-anonymize the grad student, they are cancel culture. If you wish to be part of the anti-cancel-culture alliance, probably don't write it at all. If you just wish to follow politeness norms anonymize the people involved to the best of your ability. If you want to be a part of cancel culture make the article entirely about the grad student.
C1 The New York Times was doing cancel culture against Scott. His friends did cancel culture against the New York Times. Scott in his articles about the situation did not encourage cancel culture. Tit-for-tat strategy can be good for getting people to not do things. But it needs to be handled carefully. Retaliate for specific instances against exact people. Do not retaliate for general attacks by generally attacking the other direction.
C2 Scott can personally cancel his subscription and never associate with the Atlantic again. That is not cancel culture. Telling us about it is cancel culture.
In the interests of discussion I’ll say I think A7 is not cancel culture. I’m not even sure A8 is.
Is it cancel culture to post that I simply think an inoffensive podcast, say, has declined in quality and I don’t think it’s worth people’s time?
I think the line is crossed at A9 where I start imposing sanctions on people who disagree. Forcing people to pick a side is how you get people who don’t actually care that much to join a mob.
There is some ambiguity and gray area in A7 and A8 that partly depends on your normal behavior. If it is normal behavior for you to review stuff then it is probably not cancel culture. Or if you are a journalist of some type that typically reviews video games, then your absence of opinion would be more notable than the presence of a bad opinion. Or finally if someone directly asks you for your opinion. Going out of your way to say 'fuck you in particular' seems more cancel culturish.
To post the review as a comment on the podcast I don't think it is cancel culture. To go back and edit an old post that recommends the podcast with some more recent review of "this now sucks" is not cancel culture.
But to draw attention to something that people might not have naturally noticed, and to draw attention to you disassociating with it is cancel culture. Its just the tiniest bit of cancel culture. But when millions of people do it then it is clearly recognized as cancel culture.
And we probably wouldn't have an issue with "cancel culture" if that is all people did. But sometimes correcting a problem requires swinging back hard in the opposite direction.
Intent is the difference IMO, did you write your review because you wanted to share your opinion, or because you wanted to spark action against the thing. You can usually tell from the outside which it is because the person sharing their opinion will usually genuinely state it as such, whereas the person trying to drum up a cancel mob will not. Also, the person trying to cancel will either directly call to action, or do it indirectly: they will hint at the pressure point the mob should target ("We've contacted the chair of the psych department at the university to ask them if they endorse this grad student's side papers and they declined to comment").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link