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 that the relative numbers are less important than this statement suggests at first glance, that the relative status and distribution are underrated concerns by the statement, and that there's a great deal of room for people to consider something "bad" without actually meaningfully wanting to condemn or prevent it, until it's too late and the damage is done.
Luigi and Thomas Crooks are terrible and rare. Luigi stans somewhat less so on both counts. But people that will excuse them- "it's just stupid jokes, they're just young and full of passionate intensity, you've got to understand,
kids on campus" those people abound.So when considering a question like
I wouldn't know how to answer, it's too slippery. There is so much room for "but," hedging, selective attention, selective indifference that puzzling it out becomes impossible, and it is in those areas where the most damage is done to the social fabric. The sympathizer's shrug does more damage than the rioter's brick, because there's so many more of the former.
Do I think you or Scott would cheer if Crooks had hit Trump square on? Of course not. You least of all, and I'm sure your tragic post would be heartfelt and eloquent. But I'm not so confident Scott would feel a need to publicly mourn the return of political assassination to the US, and most mainstream Blue pundits would be vastly less bothered. He wouldn't be cold on the table before we'd hear "This is a tragedy, but-." Justifications. Excuses. Vibes? Papers? Redefinition of terms to not apply, so they can only be aimed one way? He was uniquely terrible! A threat to democracy! His rhetoric frightened desperate people!
All of those mainstream Blues would say, in a vacuum, that Political Assassinations Are Bad. But it would turn out this one is less bad, that we don't need to Have A Conversation about it, that it's unique and not a symptom of deeper rot. Nationwide rioters are just an idea. Wear a buffalo head into the Capitol, those guys are thugs and terrorists.
And likewise, to the right! Nationwide rioters are thugs and terrorists, Buffalo Guy was just committing mild trespass. If it had been Biden, no doubt Reds would be... well, having lots of fishing accidents, but also vaguely sympathizing, if they think they wouldn't be depersoned for it. I am not trying to cast one side without sin, here.
Only meandering along that the sympathizers should not be underestimated while we're making to not overestimate the actual advocates.
More options
Context Copy link