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 -
That fits the ambivalence theory. I don’t see anything in that statement that suggests he sees “the stockyards slaughter house pens” as worse than the ruin of Europe or the destruction of Eastern European capitals.
He was listing the most horrible things that have happened. He considered it equivalent to Europe being a bombed out ruin and 30 million combat deaths. I don't think a plain reading of the passage ever lands on "ambivalence".
I mean, yes. But he also doesn’t really separate out the single event that modern discourse around WW2 the holocaust is the tragedy of the war. Here, it’s surrounded by other atrocities— battle casualties, burned capitols, European cities in ruins. It has not yet developed the mythical power that it will hold much later on. A modern writer talking about the events listed in this passage would never dare to put the holocaust in the same paragraph as other casualties of the war. Modern telling puts the holocaust front and center, alone, with no other atrocities allowed to detract from it. That’s not how Churchill sees WW2. To him, the holocaust is one tragedy among several others, not something uniquely evil or even more evil than the other events of the war.
To post mythic generations, this would be pretty ambivalent, and if the person were Jewish, he’d probably consider such a retelling pretty antisemitic as it downplayed the holocaust compared to how modern history talks about it.
I was a bit of an odd duckling growing up. I watched a lot of history channel, maybe that changed my perspective. I do not feel I learned about the war with that framing. I felt that pearl harbor almost shared equal horror and tragedy with the Holocaust. I mean I guess it was up to the teachers at the time there might be two questions on the Pacific war, and two questions on the Holocaust for the state test so they get equal billing in class lesson plans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link