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 -
One of the more impactful books I read this decade was Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. The books argues that our media environment, primarily TV in the time that this book was written, encourages political infantilization, rhetorical deskilling, and an obsession with appearances rather than substance of policies and candidates. Parts of this argument are undoubtedly true: Postman gives the example of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 where people stood for 7 HOURS to listen to the two politicians duke it out over the nitty-gritty policies related to slavery as an institution at that time. I couldn't see very many people today, much less your average social-media addicted normie (probably the equivalent of a rural Illinois farmer in the 1850s), paying attention to anything for 7 hours, much less grasping complex policy arguments.
But at the same time, I wonder how rose-tinted Postman's perception of political culture in the antebellum period was. I'm doing my annual re-read of Battle Cry of Freedom, and this time around it really struck me how much heavy-handed, or even blatantly-illegal shit that the pro-slavery faction of the nation in the 1850s got up to in the lead up to the Civil War. The Filibuster invasions of sovereign Central American countries were sanctioned by many politicians in the South, and the individuals responsible got away scot-free because of the bias of the jurors. The Fugitive Slave Act and related Dred Scott and other Supreme Court rulings were attempts to basically force the North to accept slavery throughout the whole country. Pro-slavery forces from Missouri tried to falsify elections in Kansas to force admission of that state as permitting slavery, despite a nearly 10:1 ratio of yeoman farmers:slaver holders in the territory. And this isn't even getting started on the morality of slavery itself. Of course the more extreme abolitionists also got up to some indefensible stuff (mainly thinking John Brown and his backers), but the majority of the insane policy prescriptions and rhetoric came from below the Mason-Dixon Line. All this is to say that basically, it seems to me that the undoubtedly superior attention spans and verbal reasoning skills in general didn't seem to do much to help policy-makers decide the slavery question. In the end force of arms had to do that.
I see a lot of parallels between the South's position in the 1850s and perhaps surprisingly the pro-immigration crowd in California/other Blue States. Of course there are perhaps more moral parallels with the extreme abolitionists, but in terms of contempt for the constitution, federal authority, and inability to understand the game theory of their opponents, the anti-ice protestors remind me a lot more of Jeff Davis and Robert Toombs than William Lloyd Garrison or Abe Lincoln. In both cases, it doesn't seem that attention span, or verbal IQ helped either side convince their opponents or find a peaceful solution to the problem.
Are there other examples that you can think of where the attention span and deep thought that Postman aspires to have helped cities/nations get through tough political challenges? Or are these tools only really useful in justifying what one already believes in a slightly more pretty way, leaving the actual battles over fundamental differences to be fought on the battlefield.
Postscript: One difference that I do think is real between today and the 1860s is the willingness of young men to actually put their lives on the line for what they believed in. Say what you will for John Brown, or Stonewall Jackson, but they were willing to die to fight against (or for) slavery. There were quite a few university professors and students in the Union Army. I don't think you would see this kind of behavior today from either side of the political divide, but especially from the left.
I think that the attention span thing is real, and quite troubling. I find it very rare that anyone can even articulate what they believe and why they believe it, let alone provide evidence that backs up their positions. Most people, when pressed to explain where they get their information, it generally reduces to social media, YouTube, or podcasts. In short, for the vast majority, their view of reality is based on the AI running their social media feeds. In this sense we are very far behind the people of 1824 or even 1724 who generally got their news from newspapers that came out once a day and contained long-form articles about the news. This means that they at least understood the bare facts of the issues. And that puts them far above us in being able to understand the world, and take positions based on the facts and their own thoughts about those issues. We run on vibes.
The bigger difference between their era and ours is that we’re much more narcissistic and see political opinions as parts of our identity. In 1824, you wouldn’t have made an identity of your policy positions. A person’s lifestyle and hobbies were not affected by their politics. People might have interests, but being in favor of the fugitive slave law had nothing to do with how you saw yourself as a person. You didn’t pick up or drop interests because they were coded “other team”. Nobody stopped drinking tea because it was marketed to the Southern people. We dropped Bud Light because it was marketed to trans people.
Abolitionists absolutely saw it as part of their identity, at least.
Part of, sure. But im pretty sure they weren’t choosing fashions or foods or other products because they were associated with abolition. Modern politics isn’t politics as they would have understood it. It’s more of a lifestyle brand in our culture. And in a lot of ways I think I would compare our way of thinking about our political party affiliation much like someone pre-enlightenment might have thought about religious denominations. Today nobody really gives a fuck what denomination of Christianity you follow. And outside of highly religious regions of the country, nobody’s even that upset by the idea that you’re not Christian at all. Most people believe or don’t but it’s not the thing that drives their thinking. Go back to the reformation, and it mattered quite a bit both to you and everyone around you what type of Christianity you practiced. Be a Catholic in John Calvin’s part of France isn’t good for your lifespan. Be Protestant in a Catholic region and it’s likewise not a good thing. And most people were not only willing to die rather than renounce their version of Christianity, but likewise willing to see others punished for not being the right kind of Christian. Minus the killing (at least thus far) this is how most people approach politics. Our system is the only good and true, and the reason you aren’t a good red/blue is that you are evil or deluded. And each part of the political spectrum has its preferred lifestyle. MAGA types like to style themselves after working class interests. Blue tribes tend to like more arty things. But why should this go along with politics?
They absolutely were.
Religion was central to politics in medieval Europe, not a distinct thing that was seperate and fenced off. The distinction between the nationalist killing a communist and a catholic killing a protestant is on a conceptual level, not that different. In both cases it is an argument over how the world as we understand it is arranged and who is handing out bread.
Ultimately I think you're starting from a false premise here, or have an odd definition of politics. At the end of the day humans are going to be humans and love showing how much they are part of the tribe through how they dress, act, eat, etc. I mean, just look at the history of nationalism and nationalist movements.
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