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's fair. Do you have an example of a community that is a) left-leaning, b) claims to be fundamentally opposed to political violence in all forms, and c) exists?
Ending Nazi Germany was political violence. I think this is too strict a criterion.
If someone wants to establish a more narrow one, I'll work with them on that. Or, if it turns into another two-step of 'i hate violence'-'punch the nazi', where 'nazi' includes everyone to the right of 2015 Obama, point that out. But I need something to work with.
At some point you need to look at the object level. The problem with "I want to kill Jews" compared to "I want to kill Hitler" is not the advocacy of violence, it's that Jews are not a deserving target, while Hitler is.
Something that should usually work, however, would be two steps: First, we're talking about personal or mob violence. Having your government declare war on Germany and sending soldiers in really isn't the issue. Second, if someone actually thinks violence is needed, they should be willing to kill, not just to punch--this avoids people who advocate violence performatively or want to commit violence only on weaker people without any risks. If they pass these tests and still want to kill the Jews or Republicans, see above: they're evil, but you do need to look at the object level to see why.
Yes, there's a lot of ways to square the circle; I've given similar answers (albeit with self-defense and necessity prongs) when Trace chased me down in DMs back on reddit to test my principles against Arthur Chu (yes, really).
But Trace denied that, at length, both in DM and publicly, and his rule got them to TheSchism today. Nor does some other part of the Blue Tribe have a well-established principle that they're holding here, that applies to both their side and their enemies in a wide variety of cases. It's the existence of the norm, not the possibility of one, that's the issue.
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