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 -
I think most attempts to characterize “this place” are misguided. General agreement with a principle isn’t enough to make that principle representative, especially where political coalitions are involved.
I also think that, compared to the vast majority of people who want to generalize about “this place,” you’ve put more effort into doing so politely and constructively. It’s a good post. The least I can do is answer for myself.
On the first point of argument: that’s not what I would call “individualism,” which normally refers to the weighting of individual interests as opposed to collective ones. What you’re describing is like the opposite of “collective punishment.” Perhaps “personal responsibility.”
Your use of “meritocracy” is more agreeable, though I don’t know how many people would limit “personal virtue” to avoiding self-interest.
With that out of the way,
If Group R gets privileged based only on the deeds of their ancestors, then that’s corrosive to meritocracy, to personal responsibility, and to individualism.
If the two groups start out with equal claims, but Group D has thrown theirs away by rejecting the American ethos, then it flips. Now meritocracy demands we prefer Group R, since at least it isn’t trying to wreck the project. We’re supposed to hold Group D responsible for their individual actions.
Guess which of these is closer to the modal Republican worldview?
Vance’s
dogwhistlemotte and bailey is consistent and defensible to his intended audience. It’s actively hostile to anybody who doesn’t already agree. I don’t think he cares.If Vance wanted to talk about the second case where the groups start with equal claims, he could've said something like (I'm trying to make this rhetorically charged in the same way) "church-going, law-abiding patriots have a hell of a lot more claim over America than ungrateful socialists who say they hate our country". Specifically focusing on "people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War" really makes it that Group R being privileged just based on their ancestry is a strong part of his statement.
Maybe this is too much psychoanalysis, or maybe I'm falling for some rhetorical game where Vance is baiting responses by purposefully saying something in a more controversial way then he needs to (I mean, focusing on the Civil war without specifying which side instead of the Revolutionary war definitely seems to be something like this), but my gut feel is that going out of the way to bring up such a specific thing as ancestry means that this is actually what he was trying to say.
So I honestly don't know anymore what's close to the modal Republican worldview (or more relevantly, what vision the current Republican party pushes for during the current and future times it has power). Figuring this out was the main reason for the post since I really think this forum gives a good sense of the intellectual arguments that eventually work their way down to driving Republican goals.
Yes, you are massively overreading a verbal quote and adding information to it in order to make a larger point beyond its actual scope. I don't think Vance was cleverly baiting you. I think he was giving an innocuous speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
FYI the post you're replying to is Filtered.
Fixed. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link