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:
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.
Then we are watching two very different movies. That's the story I imbibed growing up and there may still exist the cringy teenaged political rants on LiveJournal to prove it. I get annoyed at this discussion because I'm coming with the embarrassed energy of the deconverted. More generally, I think if I rephrased it less snarkily, something like "After the CRA, basically all of the racists immediately switched to the Republican party and stayed there ever since", the median Redditor would agree, and further agree that all educated people know this is true history.
At this point we're a little deep in the woods, in terms of multiple people jumping into a conversation. The "newest posts" feed is great for murdering time, but contributes to this sort of situation. To clarify, I'm not saying the quoted bit above, but I am saying that many of the racist Democrats from 60 years ago stayed Democrats in the wake of the CRA, and many who did switch did so more for other reasons ranging from religion to foreign policy, over the course of that 60 years. Hlynka, by contrast, was making a separate claim that Democrats are a party of public disorder and violent race baiting, and that this is core enough to the meme cluster "Democrat Party" to be common between old social-con Klansmen and new woke-prog antifa.
This is a very isolated demand for rigor. Dems damn the Republicans for the Southern Strategy and the United States in general for slavery and historical racism, but BlushingFlowerMeme.jpg regarding their own party's history as the party of slavery, the party of the Klan, and the party of Jim Crow. I'm certainly amenable to "the past is a different country" arguments, but the folks who toppled statues of abolitionists because they don't actually know who the person was don't get a free dodge for that accusation of hypocrisy.
To clarify, I meant the story that I told in this thread, not the story that I was told as a child.
Not a claim I made.
I don't see how that is relevant to the issue. which is whether the Democratic Party is "the real racist party" today. Just because statute-topplers are morons who make moronic claims does not mean that is it ok for us to do so.
I have no patience for claims of racism in general, and specifically not for claims that "Republicans are racist," but it is very clear that that parties have changed on issues of relevance to African Americans. In 1960, if you were a real honest-to-goodness racist, you were almost voted Democratic. Today, you almost certainly vote Republican. (I am of course assuming two parties). The Democratic Party tends to support affirmative action, while the Republican Party tends to oppose it. The Democratic Party appoints judges who tend to reign in police civil liberties violations; the Republican Party appoints judges who are "law and order" judges who tend to do the opposite. Etc, etc. This has been true for thirty years
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party, at least, is a vastly different party on these issues than it was 70 years ago. In contrast, the Republican Party, has drifted in the other direction. More generally, once upon a time the Republican Party was the more liberal party, not just on race, but on many other issues; meanwhile, the Democratic Party was the more conservative party, especially on race. That is obviously no longer the case.
Did not quite say you did. What I am claiming is that it is a very common understanding of events, and the first comment of yours that I replied to was in that ballpark.
I think we're into 3 or 4 different issues, talking past each other, and I have a feeling that if I go into responses for a bunch of the parts of the next two paragraphs I have problems with, it's going to keep happening.
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link