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 -
I have no idea why you think any concern about this issue is "fake outrage". You acknowledge that they actually think something importantly fought over is at risk, so the outrage is not fake then, no? I guess you're saying they're disguising the cause of the outrage.
The outrage is certainly not fake. What do you think all that bureaucracy (which you call nonsense) is supposed to stop? Is it not the very deportations you argue people don't think they're at risk for, and other similar injustices? If I see a lion in its enclosure pounding away at the glass 5 inches in front of me while staring me down and yowling aggressively, I will assume that once it breaks the glass it will attack me. That's what the glass is there to prevent, and there's a reason the lion doesn't like it. It's because it wants to bite people it's angry at.
If I'm in a crowd of 1000 people at the zoo when the glass breaks, my personal odds of getting eaten are very low, but I still don't want it to happen and would take measures to prevent it. I might even feel some fear if I saw cracks forming in the glass despite knowing my odds are good. This is all pretty normal human behaviour, not what you call "play acting".
There is no legal protection for any citizen without adhering to some forms of bureaucracy, and people get scared when they are not protected.
Also, its strange that you dismiss the threat of deportation to Europe. I guess you don't see a huge cost in forcibly having your life uprooted from friends and family and work? But again, doing the utmost to avoid such a thing and being worried about it when its use is actively threatened against citizens is pretty normal human behaviour, even if the countries are nice. If you truly would have no qualms about such a thing (which I do find a bit hard to believe, but I'll take you at your word) then all I can say is I think you are in a tiny minority.
In general, I have a hard time understanding the distinction you're trying to draw between people worried about the fall of this supposed "shadow government" and actual cuts to USAID, government departments, etc, none of which I would describe as "shadow organizations". It really seems to me like people are worried about exactly the thing that it says on the tin, the thing that both Trump supporters and his opponents agree he is doing: "circumventing the procedural nonsense" that our country's documents call laws and taking a tire iron to the parts of the government he doesn't like, and which the people he dislikes support.
More options
Context Copy link