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 -
It's defense against the enemy. I won't "say his name."
Fixed the link
I don't think your political enemies like references to the Floyd/Ferguson Effect regardless of what you call him. If anything derogatory partisan nicknames mean such references are less likely to be taken seriously by those they might otherwise be worried about you convincing.
Good idea I can say that, as it's a way to refer to the event without saying his name. But I feel like it's less understandable for the average reader, who probably forgot where Ferguson is but remembers the name.
I mean, is it so terrible to say these people's names? You can obviously disagree with the way in which the events have been framed and understood, but at some point you're just giving ammunition to your opposition who can make the reasonable claim that you're trying to dehumanize Floyd or Trayvon by not treating them as people worthy of being referenced, even when relevant, and even to criticize them.
Was thinking of making a higher level post but I'll just reply here:
Imagine if the enemy said "doing the hokey pokey is an endorsement of our cause." Or alternatively "doing the hokey pokey is pledging loyalty our cause." Well I would find it a pretty compelling reason to stop doing the hokey pokey. Even though I might like that dance, and have to sit out for that at the school dance. Refusing to do it is enough of a low cost to me that I'm willing to cede the ground and let them make the hokey pokey an enemy loyalty pledge.
You might say that I should do the hokey pokey anyways to try to reclaim it from the enemy. That might be reasonable depending on the specific factors at the time, but when the overwhelming number of people doing it are loyal enemy servants, that's difficult. All the genuine hokey pokey lovers in the world aren't enough to outnumber the enemy's loyalists, and unfortunately they're all going to be misjudged as being part of the enemy's group just for doing what they love. They'll probably have to post a sign outside their gym that says "we don't endorse the enemy." But unfortunately holding that ground is not a battle that can be easily won.
Well, sure, but who on earth says that saying the name 'George Floyd' or that saying the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' (in reference to a movement and organisation called Black Lives Matter) constitutes endorsing anything? I don't see the concern here.
I can understand not wanting to use certain phrases because they frame an issue in a way you disagree with. For instance, I avoid saying the phrase 'marriage equality' because I think it is a gross mischaracterisation of the issue, and if I used it I think I would be accepting a strawman. Likewise there's a tic among some activists where they refuse to use the phrase 'pro-life' in any circumstances; they instead refer to pro-life activists as 'anti-abortion activists'.
But 'George Floyd' is just a name, and saying it implies nothing about whether one supports or opposes any political issue related to him. Likewise BLM is the name of an organisation. I don't think that saying it in that context constitutes a kind of endorsement.
By saying the name of the organization, you have also said the words in that phrase. By saying those words, you have necessarily incepted the idea represented by that phrase into the mind of yourself and the minds of your readers. Even though the idea may be completely irrelevant to your intended discussion denouncing or even defending the organization, you have necessarily made the idea represented by the phrase a topic of contemplation and discussion, even against your best intention.
You have also contributed to the dissemination of that idea as readers who have not heard that phrase before will be exposed to it now. Especially without an explicit denial of the idea, introducing a new idea to someone carries a small implicit endorsement. This might not be particularly an issue with the phrase that has the same words as the name of that organization, but in general I believe this rule applies.
More words to justify treating simple and clear descriptive names as if you are a Harry Potter character afraid of summoning He Who Is Not To Be Named. This is not any kind of rational or principled opposition to a nebulous "enemy." It's literal superstition.
There are any number of people and organizations we all hold in disdain or worse. Inventing euphemisms or derogatory epithets to avoid naming them is the level of response I expect from young teens.
I am not afraid of saying anything. I am avoiding disseminating the concept because it's harmful.
This is not about that organization. It is about the idea spread by the words that are used in that organization's name. And about people forced or compelled to say those words and thus contemplate that idea.Even if that organization did something really admirable and I wanted to praise the organization, it would still be justified to avoid saying those words.
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
More options
Context Copy link