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 -
As I will never get tired of explaining - the fact that something is racist doesn't make it wrong or false.
The implication that a "ghetto boy" is a member of a "virulent invasive species" is both literally false, and metaphorically wrong.
I shouldn't have to explain why it's literally false.
The metaphor is wrong because in the typical understanding, the actions we should take against "invasive species" should be extreme, up to and including eradicating them from the "invaded" area.
You can make a nature/nurture point just fine without bringing these kind of implications into it.
Do me a favor and explain why it's literally false?
Or, you know, at least stop subsidizing them.
You realize that black people didn't hop on their ships, cross the Atlantic and invade America, right? Forcibly enslaving people, displacing them from their homes and bringing them to America is vastly different from an invasive species...invading and ruining an ecosystem?
Bailey: But Chris, that was hundreds of years ago! Whiningcoil wasn't talking about the slave trade or all black people, just modern 'ghetto culture.'
Okay...are you sure he wasn't? But whatever, you realize that the parents willingly adopted this child, right? That they consented to adopting and raising a black child? They didn't ask for a white baby and some dastardly HR Karen with a humanities degree shoved a black baby into their arms at the last minute. There's no great replacement theory here, there's no 'hostile invasive species' invading their home against their consent. Just another post from Whiningcoil meant to rattle cages, which for all we know, could be entirely fabricated.
That's literally how invasive species work. If rabbits had been able to swim to Australia unaided, they wouldn't be invasive, they would be part of the natural ecosystem. Like the French and Spanish in the Americas. Do people even bother calling rats invasive? I suppose the British are the rats in this analogy.
Ah, you're right, I forgot about that time the British slapped a bunch of African rabbits in chains and forced them to pick cotton for a century or two in the hot Australian sun.
Aren't feral horses, water buffalo, and camels all categorized as 'invasive' in Australia? I personally oppose the designation- I prefer a more southwestern-US view that increasing megafaunal variety is good even if some native species suffer, but Australians have the right to their own opinions on the relative value of kangaroos vs horses even if I would have a Texas-style pro-exotics policy where only animals causing damage to the things people want out of the ecosystem are considered invasive if I were Australian emperor- but that is what Australians call them.
More options
Context Copy link
They brought rabbits over so they could chase and shoot them. They did bring over invasive work animals as well, however.
All the Australians who adopted rabbits and had their livelihoods destroyed must be livid.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link