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 -
They can absolutely do this. The whole reason postmodernism and critical theory were invented was to get around having to defend anything properly. Wokism posits that blacks are holy. Push them on why this should be and you will eventually get an answer roughly equivalent to "God said so," plus they will be very upset.
Sure, if you want to be pedantic, then they can refuse to acknowledge what they're doing. I'd call them out as irrational at best and liars at worst. My point is that they don't have the ability, like religion, to claim that their morality is objectively true because a divine and superhuman being gave it to them.
This is an irrelevant point, one that I already addressed. Yes, it's true that they masquerade on this point as if they are religious in nature, but they fundamentally are not. They do not justify their beliefs with reference to God(s) for the most part, though you can certainly find religious progressives who one might argue are misled about what their own faith compels them to believe.
Equality and fairness are their gods.
This is meaningless and suggests you're more interested in scoring anti-woke points instead of actually grasping my argument. You know damn well they do not engage in worship of a god like Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You have been posting a lot of naked assertions that consist of little more than weakman sneering.
You actually need to argue things here. You don't get to just assert them. You don't get to just wage culture war. You also need to be civil.
You've been warned about this before, and you're filling the mod queue with these sorts of low-effort "boo wokes, blacks bad," etc.
Heed this warning.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it doesn’t. They will be very upset because you’re strawmanning.
Can you give any examples?
Yes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Lives_Matter_street_murals
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/okay-to-be-white-halifax-1.4887174
I promise this is not meant to be a low effort sneer. The treatment of these two slogans only makes sense if they are religious icons and heresy, respectively.
We make public statements, even murals, for things other than religious icons. Is New Deal art religious? Is everything funded by the National Endowment for the Arts?? I could see a case for the Lincoln memorial bordering on religious, but what about the Washington monument? The Capitol proper? These are big artistic projects explicitly symbolizing our culture—but they remain firmly in the realm of the secular.
The same applies for unappealing speech. It’s a much broader category than heresy. You could replace those posters with pornography, slander, even proselytizing and see a similar article. Offending/intriguing the public enough to get a news article does not require a religious schism.
Yeah, but ignoring the ideological significance of art for a second, people do not get nearly as upset when regular art (especially low effort stuff) is besmirched or even vandalized. Can you imagine the police investigating some tire marks on a crosswalk, were it not a religious symbol? The same thing has happened with BLM logos as well.
Consider that the slogan "black lives matter," was painted by the government (or sanctioned) in huge letters on countless prominent streets in America. Then consider that the nearly identical but less assertive "it's ok to be white" on 8x11 sheets of paper launched police investigations and news articles about how racists are among us.
Yes, there is a double standard, and I'm not trying to argue that people feel the same about black and white identity politics. What's that got to do with the religious character of a belief?
Look, if you swapped out the 8x11s for glossy photos of someone's asshole, regardless of race, I'd expect people to get upset, launch investigations and write news articles. Does that make obscene pictures religious? There are perfectly secular reasons to notice and be concerned about them. In the case of the "ok to be white" posters, maybe those reasons are dumb/inconsistent. It doesn't mean they're religious.
Here's some quotes from one of the many "it's ok to be white" incidents
The whole thing is like this. Similar coverage does not exist for pictures of buttholes.
People don't tend to put up butthole photos on telephone poles because there are actual, state-enforced consequences. No, the bar is set lower.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography
Look at the first picture in that article. Protestors were up in arms over pornographic films. These private citizens rallied around a text-only marquee symbolizing the objectionable content. That sounds exactly like the response to your posters.
It's long been a point of 1st Amendment contention precisely because opinions are so strong on the matter--even in the absence of a religious character. I don't see anything in your example that suggests a religious objection.
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