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 -
Might arguing with opposing alter egos of yourself make for rhetorically compelling reading for issues relating to the culture war or otherwise?
Nate Silver, of the political analysis publication 538, recently posted two articles ahead of the US midterms:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-for-a-republican-sweep-on-election-night/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-for-a-democratic-surprise-on-election-night/
The articles were formatted as transcripts of imaginary conversations between the author and "Nate Redd", his Republican alter ego, and then the author and "Nate Bleu", the Democratic version. Both alter egos suffer from prejudiced priors in favor of their political leanings, whereas the author, a Silver (which coincidentally might approximate gray?!) tribe spokesman, is presumed rational.
I'm sure partisans can pick apart plenty of issues big and small from their preferred versions, and I personally thought the Democratic version was substantially better written, and you can decipher what that might reveal about Silver's social circles and private beliefs (or mine, especially if you disagree with my take). Still, on the whole, I found the rhetorical exercise to be a productive deconstruction and rendition of how the average politically engaged reader thinks. The conversational format makes it easier to digest for the masses. It also has the bonus of being funnier, in particular in the Dem version where Silver took plenty of shots in poking fun of Mr. Bleu.
Back to my original question. Should more nonpartisan or rational bloggers/essayists/substack writers attempt something akin to this format every so often as they try to advance sophisticated takes on controversial subjects?
For Nate Redd, Silver is "Have you talked to any of your female friends about abortion?"
Insert eyeroll from me. Because of course every single woman is pro-abortion, of course a Republican-voting guy is not going to know any women who might be pro-life, of course no woman picked at random in the USA is going to be "I think the Supreme Court decision was great".
It is clear which side Silver is naturally on, but I suppose credit for at least trying, even feebly, to imagine what the bad horrible people might think.
The framing of abortion as an issue of men controlling women always struck me as odd. In my own circles at least, the strongest pro-choice and pro-life people I know are all women. Most men I know have opinions on it, but they are rarely as firm or hardline as the women in my life. When discussing abortion with another man, there is room for nuance and whatever our opinions on the subject are, we can agree that the issue is uncommonly complex and difficult to find common ground on. I think both sides are correct in their own way so trying to untangle the mess that is the abortion debate is maddening.
I tread lightly if it comes up with women because it's always personal and it's always touchy. There isn't much room for disagreement, so I avoid saying too much if that's the case. Even if we agree on policy, any attempts by me to add nuance or explain the feelings of the other side don't go over well. I don't say this to condemn women or say men are better, but the energy in the debate reads to me as one driven by women. That being said, this is my personal experience, so I'd like to hear if this is the case for others here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link