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 -
My political discussions with young women have been centered on their feelings of moral obligation to an issue of victimhood. This comprises a good 80% of all political discussions. Immigration is simply about what is best for the brown migrants that the media has painted as victims, which young women are now to sympathize with (to the exclusion of the domestic population). This sympathy is definitionally a bias, a form of emotional bigotry that prevents any objective assessment. For immigration it’s what is best for brown migrants, for policing what is best for blacks, for picking a cabinet what is best for women and minority representation. The political messaging that targets young women is like Nazi propaganda films that successfully painted Germans as victims with pure stories, but more potent and all-encompassing. To turn one of these propagated young women into a supporter of less immigration, as an example, you simply need a potent story of some ugly criminal immigrant abusing a beautiful poor disenfranchised Native American or black girl or something, and if that story catches on (and they consume it in the zombified state that they often consume media) then the political transformation is complete. This is my honest view, you are welcome to disagree, a huge chunk of women I know think entirely in terms of social sympathy for victims, and some men do too.
Women care a lot about victimhood—yeah, plausible. I think it’s far more socially acceptable in America for women to express that sort of sentiment. Hard for me to say whether it’s downstream of political affiliation or the other way around. Have you discussed with any red-tribe/trad/reactionary girls? Do they also tend to frame beliefs this way?
Your framing of immigration rhetoric scans much more like a strawman. Maybe you actually know people with those opinions—my anecdotal evidence goes the other way. I don’t see women talking about scare/uplifting stories of immigrants. If I had to boil it down to one argument, it’d be more a sense of “just deserts.” But I wouldn’t want to make that generalization due to the complicated back and forth between principles and tribalism.
Mind expanding on what you mean? Because it seems to be implying that women are purposely supporting mass immigration to hurt their host nation.
Oh, no.
The sentiment is something like “given what these people went through to get to the border, they deserve to be let in” or “everyone deserves the quality of life we have here.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who is very annoyed by what one might call the 'attitude of victimhood', I've come to be persuaded victimhood and privilege are the defining characteristics of any discussion about ethics, and by extension politics. I've done so reluctantly, using objective assessment.
While the manifestations of Wokeism are often clumsy and wrongheaded and outright ridiculous for some of the reasons you cite ('emotional bigotry' makes some sense), the beating heart of the movement seems to have the correct moral intuition that life isn't fair & there are things we can do to correct the most egregious outgrowths of this in order to alleviate suffering & expand flourishing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link