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 -
Have you heard of the use-mention distinction?
One of the reasons we left Reddit was that a user was explaining the (((brackets))) around certain names, and what it meant, and Reddit decided that using them, even in an explanation like this one here, indicates an endorsement of the position.
Now sure, if your ideological opponents pick a name that is obviously biased, you don’t have to use that - no one is saying you should call it “The Public Execution of the Innocent George Floyd by white supremecist cops, as endorsed by Republikkkans”. But calling it “George Floyd’s death” is, if anything, conservative coded.
Censoring his name, or censoring the name of the activist organization BLM, simply makes the arguments appear unserious - to me, they seem like someone who is so angry about the concept that they can’t think clearly about it, and as a result, are probably incorrect about it.
Yes, I understand the distinction, but the issue is that I may want to mention that activist organization without mentioning the idea that is conveyed by the words in the name of that organization. That idea may be unrelated entirely to the relevant actions of that organization, yet by writing the words in the name of the organization, you have brought that unrelated idea into the discussion, whether you or the other readers want to or not.
Of course, this doesn't directly address the issue of saying the name of a certain individual who was linked to the 2020 riots. That argument is somewhat more complex.
More options
Context Copy link
Yep, that's the distinction I was going to make as well.
Organisations and movements have names, and those names are often intended to communicate something flattering about the organisation. Nonetheless using those names is not usually taken as endorsement. I call the Human Rights Campaign the Human Rights Campaign without necessarily agreeing that they do in fact campaign for human rights. I call the Justice Democrats or the Freedom Caucus by their names without thereby conceding that they have anything to do with justice or with freedom.
I understand wanting to be careful about the language you use. There are cases where I would be careful. But this seems excessive to me.
The names "Human Rights Campaign, "Justice Democrats" or "Freedom Caucus" don't convey any message at all, beyond possibly giving an inaccurate idea of what the organization does. You can't say "human rights campaign is false." It doesn't say anything in particular about human rights or campaigning.
On the other hand, the words in the name of the organization do have a direct plain meaning. A meaning that is direct and can be argued. It's certainly possible to argue that "[words in the name of the organization] is false" or "[words in the name of the organization] is true."
Wanderer got there first, I think.
Lower-case 'black lives matter' is a mother statement. Nobody's going to argue that the lives of black people don't matter except the most egregious and nihilistic of racists. The phrase 'black lives matter' is even entirely consistent with believing that black lives are worth less than white lives - if they matter any amount above zero, the statement is true.
Capital-letter 'Black Lives Matter' refers to a movement that makes specific, potentially false claims around police violence, structural racism, and so on. I fully sympathise with not wanting to endorse those claims, since many of them are false. But I don't see how naming the movement constitutes endorsing it, no more than saying the words 'Human Rights Campaign' implies that I agree with the specific, potentially false claims made by the HRC.
More options
Context Copy link
Firstly, unless you're a complete nihilist, "black lives matter" is a true statement. So's "blue lives matter", and so's "all lives matter". The controversial ideological position behind BLM's name is the claim that white cops don't believe black lives matter and are consequently shooting innocent blacks left and right. Conservatives believe that this is baseless slander, that most cops value human lives as much as anyone without racial discrimination, and that the supposed spree of extrajudicial police killings is an illusion at best, a deliberate lie at worst. Nobody except a few mad edgelords disputes the literal meaning of the words "black lives matter". The implicit BLM claim of "black lives matter, and yet white cops are racist and don't believe that", meanwhile, is so contextual that simply saying the name "Black Lives Matter" does not, in any conceivable way, constitute parroting that claim out loud.
More salient, however, is the fact that while "black lives matter" is technically a "message" with a "direct plain meaning", the same can hardly be said of the words "george floyd". You are not endorsing any particular idea by mouthing or writing those syllables, except that there was a human being by that name involved in the event at issue, a truth-claim which I… hope you would not deny as a matter of objective fact.
That second bit is making it especially hard to take you seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link