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 think the piece by O'Neill gets close enough, though it reads like he gives too much credit to people that don't deserve it.
If one wants to oppose Israel's latest foray or advocate for the dissolution of the Israeli state they can do so a number of ways. A leftist, secular academic position has built-in sympathies and perceived solidarity with the Arab world. In addition to a finite understanding of a concept called colonialism. One could also don the suit of an Islamist, or a bygone pan-Arab nationalist, or pick up a /pol/ suit and throw stone slurs to bring down the house of Global Judaism. Our reasons don't need to be. Status is enough. Status delende est.
The "middle-class ‘progressives’ who fancy themselves as anti-fascist" worldly champions of the down trodden fill the secular leftist academic's shoes, but only indirectly. The secular, leftist academic made an easy-to-use cookie cutter framework to view the world: oppressor-oppressed dichotomy. If you add a garnish of Global South to the brown, colonialism, and campism derivatives, then you've got a rich, if limited, set of ideas that nearly anyone can pick up. From broader complexified works of the humanities come ideas distilled for Popular Use.
It's a hell of a meme. Simple enough to be understood by people who never have to read a book, but truthy enough to get by as a deepity. Most importantly, the beliefs as an applied moral framework are not universal enough (or are inappropriate often enough) to be controversial. The last bit is important, because one doesn't wield youthful rebellion without spirit. Warriors don't volunteer for boring, centrist peacetime garrison duty. The white man didn't have a burden to stay home and send paper and pencil to civilize the world.
Institutions like the academy have only started to consider their incubation chambers worth a looksie. For the elite institutions, in a meek, delicate way. We are experiencing a hangover from the Cold War, with all the Soviet propaganda, ideology, and theories that came with and preceded it. That's the material we are left to work with.
The march through institutions was not a test. Coordination and intent can be debated, but, frankly, there's plenty enough people happy that the kids are Waking Up. The kids could be waking up to champion some terrible not-yet-known techno-electronica rock'n'roll to achieve peace (I suppose the Nova festival goers were trying this) or they could rebel against HFCS. They land on Palestine, they land on the West Must Be Destroyed, because those are the ideas that were left to them.
The CIA really didn't do a very good job.
I don't think this is true. The Holocaust was hyper-Jewified! One can critique the motivations and actions of the ADL and the Jewish lobby, but "not Jewish enough" or "not heavy handed enough" can't possibly be true. Israel as a controversy does reduce the impact Jewish Genocide messaging though.
More options
Context Copy link