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 -
Is it possible that the media is committing a basic PR mistake in publishing protest imagery featuring defiant and aggressive countenances?
Take a look at the following, from a NYT article on student protests in front of the SCOTUS in support of affirmative action (AA) earlier this week:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/10/31/multimedia/31scotus-live-reporter-updates-38-1-58b6/31scotus-live-reporter-updates-38-1-58b6-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp
The emotions evoked here seem broadly negative--no one looks happy. Though it's an image, the scene feels loud, angry, and anxiety-inducing. I may be unduly influenced by the raised fists in the placards, but then again, the photographer and editor could have chosen shots without them.
Plenty has been said about the US civil rights movement, including some critique on the left that today's right often try to whitewash history by drawing on that history to contrast with the more militant versions of protest today, especially less peaceful versions immediately after Floyd. At the risk of drawing the same critique, I present the first image on google when you search for "civil rights protest", from ADL:
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/2018-01/civil-rights-march-on-washington-27-0276a.jpg
The emotions evoked here seem broadly positive--people look happy, serious, optimistic, united. That seems far preferable when it comes to political imagery--shouldn't a basic litmus test be, would the average voter or donor want to learn more about you and from you? It feels like I could have a good and edifying conversation with folks from the second photo, whereas I'd expect to be lectured to and shouted at from the first.
Now, there are certainly plentiful counterexamples (I list some at the bottom), with angry photos from the 60s and happy ones from earlier this week. But my point is less about what can happen, and more what should happen. If the media is broadly sympathetic of AA, and seeks to rally public opinion in favor of it, shouldn't it craft images most effective at drawing support, and shouldn't it seek to do this consistently across the articles it publishes? Think commercial branding--a premium CPG company might not have all of its ads feature happy, smiling families hugging one another, but it certainly goes to great lengths to ensure no ads evoke broadly negative emotions. So my impression is the media seems to be failing on this front, perhaps because its basic instinct of promoting images that are considered empowering (i.e. portraying women, especially POC, as strong and powerful) is overriding more strategic considerations over what makes a narrative more persuasive. In other words, its unquestioning ideological commitment makes it less effective at achieving its ultimate objectives.
As I assume the median reader here leans anti-AA, I suggest considering my hypothesis using a protest that's aligned to your beliefs. Whether it's the Dobbs case or the EPA case from last term, would you be more likely to vote for or donate to a group protesting (on whichever side you favor) in front of the SCOTUS if they were photographed by journalists looking more like photo 1 or photo 2 above?
P.S. Bonus comments on other images from NYT's live thread on the SCOTUS case: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/31/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court
Better take. People here seem more accessible, relatable, and also more influential. There is something about a group of people with angry facial expressions--they counterintuitively seem powerless. Can you imagine an image of G7 leaders all scowling at the camera?
Photo of UNC campus. It seems clear that most eyes will be immediately drawn to the center blond woman who has a bit of a Mona Lisan smile. I'm not sure that alone explains why this photo was chosen to represent UNC, but I feel confident in saying that a version with her looking like someone from the AA protest would not be chosen to represent UNC--what prospective student wants to go to a place where students seem angry all the time?
A bit off topic, but this was captioned as SCOTUS. It seems a bit contrived. What's the message here? That justice is upside down? The water is murky?
From the anti-AA side. Same problem, actually. I'd personally much rather talk to the smiling man in the back than the indignant-looking woman with the "speaker" lanyard in front holding a comically oversized megaphone.
Much better pro-AA image. People look happy. Do this more, NYT.
There's a reason some of the most moving parts of the bible are jesus's suffering and death and resurrection, not jesus smiling, kumbaya, and doing a happy PR piece about mental health. The passionate and tortured struggle is moving! Someone you're not a fan of doing a forceful protest may be unpleasant, but someone you support shouting for justice, they're upset because they care that much, because the republicans are taking away the bright futures of black children, is more moving than smiling for justice. (not saying anything about the correctness of said causes, this 'struggle' isn't that much of one). (not to give the idea there's some simple dichotomy here - both 'passionate struggle against oppression' and 'happy PR speak' are just a few of many different affects / approaches, and they aren't necessarily wholes, and you can take some parts of one without other parts, you can have a struggle against something that isn't oppression that's also moving, etc)
Jesus may suffer, but he is rarely angry, and the thing that sticks with you if your a believer is that he had the option to bail and didn't, as the song goes he could have called down the angels but instead he called upon mankind.
Driving the moneychangers out of the Temple with a scourge of whipcord is one instance of Jesus being angry.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how entirely true the former is, my details on christianity are hazy, but 'jesus righteous anger' gets a lot of results, like this. Righteous anger on behalf of the poor or something
Jesus is just one example, you can look elsewhere - political speeches. There's a lot of forceful speech against bad people, and a lot of strong expressions along with it. It varies in intensity - hitler and goebbels was angrier than obama, but obama's recent speeches aren't exactly placid happiness either.
The question "was Jesus ever angry" is trivially easy to answer in the affirmative, that's not the point.
Likewise, if you think Obama's recent speeches represent an exemplar of persuasiveness and virtue I don't know what to tell you execpt that you are deep in the progressive bubble.
My other example of persuasive anger was "hitler and goebbels" (and I didn't mention virtue)?
I recognize that, but I'm already in the dog house and I would probably get tagged for being uncharitable if I were to respond with nothing more than "Huey Long called it." ;)
Huey long was, I'd bet, a fiery and - though it's not the right term at all - angry speaker himself! https://youtube.com/watch?v=z-5UGXJcNwQ
Look at those facial expressions, listen to that voice - it hardly passes OP's friendliness tests!
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link