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.
Nah, man, this is silly. His name was George Floyd. That's simply a fact. He was a person of historical significance who had a name that we use the same way we use names to refer to anyone else when we're trying to convey information about who we're discussing. You are not "Saying his name" in the liturgical BLM sense just because you use his name to communicate data.
You can despise him and the Black Lives Matter movement all you want, but literally Voldemorting words is giving "the enemy" more power over you than if you just used accurate names and descriptions for things. Notice that I typed "Black Lives Matter" without in any way implying that I endorse the movement, because everyone understands what I mean by referring to it.
These awkward affectations you use to avoid typing words remind me of Zoomers saying "unalived" or "grape" - originally because they had to censor certain words on TikTok, but now it's just becoming a Zoomer thing that you can't Say Those Words.
It's ridiculous and it isn't making some political point or p0wning the Wokes, it's just you contributing to the obfuscation of language.
I've never heard of "grape", but I don't spend much time on the Tok. "Unalived" is just an inherently funny word, it sounds like a Monty Python joke about bureaucratic language. I'd only use it as part of a joke.
Of course, "died" is a phrase people don't like saying, "passed away" is the old euphemism.
I don't know anyone who won't say "died" in person, but maybe this is a younger zoomer thing that I'm too unbrainrotted to understand.
I don't follow Tiktok at all, but it's spread to YouTube and reddit and other social media. "Unalived" is usually used as a euphemism for killed or committed suicide. "Grape" also sounds like it's supposed to be a joke to me, but it seems to be replacing the "r*pe" obfuscation that I guess is supposed to be less "triggering" than seeing all the letters.
I don’t think it’s sensitivity reasons, it was that the algorithms on social media platforms deranked or demonetized content that had references to death or sexual assault. Presumably for advertisement reasons. You said it’s grown beyond just that, but I believe YouTube and other platforms censor it just like TikTok, so they’re just doing what the algorithms encourage.
So this isn’t an example of zoomer fragility — it’s an example of the power of advertiser skittishness and algorithmic content ranking to affect language on multiple platforms. (That sounded like AI, but it wasn’t. Promise.)
I could also just be out of touch on this, but I’ve never heard of someone who literally won’t say the word “killed” in an in-person setting. Rape is more sensitive, I guess.
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