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.
Reading this following the earlier thread about environmentalists gluing themselves to streets something occurs to me. The civil rights movement is the quintessential example of a successful protest movement, but for all the talk about how "disruption is essential to a successful protest" I think something that is lost on a lot of modern protestors is that the Freedom Riders Et Al were rarely disruptive in themselves. Sitting down at a lunch counter and ordering a burger is not disruptive, it's what the lunch counter it is there for, it was the responses of others that was disruptive. Simply put, if you're a dude pouring a milkshake on some chick's head for ordering a burger you're the asshole, and public perception reflected that.
This reminds me of a quality contribution post, regarding the "it's okay to be white posters", which says "The far-right statement isn't: "It's okay to be white" , it is you tearing it down."
link: https://www.vault.themotte.org/post/the_shortest_quality_contribution
Part of why trolling sometimes works as an ideological tool is because people who react disproportionately to innocuous things look ridiculous and usually end up hurting their own side more than they help.
I miss the past.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link