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 -
Sorry to reply so late; my actual life imposed.
Your idea of a “national divorce” is tempting only inasmuch as there are two distinct groups that will have no more internal conflicts once separated. But this is not borne out by reality. Look at the tenuous Musk-Trump alliance, which has already fallen apart. Would they have to share part of America? Why would they not simply fall into factional infighting? Why isn’t it divorces all the way down?
Loving thy neighbor, or at least tolerating him in a modestly political sense, is a difficult thing to do, and when it breaks down there is no limit to the breakdowns. There are no Blues without Reds, no Reds without Blues, and the spirit of the age is one of malice seeking an outlet. What I have argued, am arguing, and will continue to argue, is that opposing this malice in itself, not through some subset of its mortal proxies, is both right and the only hope we have.
I have friends and family who are much, much more politically attached than I am. I oppose them in many ways, and I’m fairly open about that. But I still have good relationships with them because that opposition is braced by the much more real and human love and trust we share. I believe this is what’s at the heart of what one might call a homogeneous nation - this sense of trust that permits differences and arguments. And that trust, when it exists, exists on the smallest scale and percolates upwards as a simple expression of the way we live our lives, day to day. And part of that trust is the trust that we will do what is right and proper even when it is inconvenient or disadvantageous, that we will keep our word. Will you keep your word? That’s what’s really there, in the rule of law. It’s the rule of law over one’s own heart. And if you repudiate that in favor of advantage or passion, who can trust you - on any scale?
No shit the progressives have overstepped. But that’s not what’s at issue here. The real question is, and can only be, the safety of one’s own soul.
More options
Context Copy link