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 -
Why should anyone care, exactly? It's not like any of us are having sex with her. If her partners are fine with how she is (and they seem to be, if she's still having success getting some), then good for her I guess.
I care because it is one of the many instances of how the social norms are established and before you know it, it will be your own daughter smelling around the dinner table. I am done with the "live and let live" attitude for all the craziness it brought upon us. I am now all for return of good old shaming/blaming back into town. So yeah, I have no problem calling Aella and any of her partners as disgusting people. Sue me.
Okay. And progressives will use their cultural influence to shame you for not being one of them. You want to swing a dangerous weapon around. It will predictably be turned on you and me.
That seems like conflict theory done only halfway.
I'd say all weapons will be used by all sides that are capable of using them, with no respect for unilateral non-escalation. Progressives will shame conservatives regardless of conservatives refraining from attempting the same, because progressives are currently in a position to quote that piece of the Melian Dialogue: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.".
Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.
You seem to be making the mistake that what's important is to win or lose. But as the cliche goes, what matters is how you play the game. I would much rather lose while upholding good moral behavior, than win by sacrificing morals.
Nietzsche asked:
If your morals lead you to be devoured by the monster, for no benefit to anyone except monsters, then what good are those morals?
To quote a long-eared muppet. "That is why you fail".
This is why leftism always devolves into purity-spirals and circular firing squads, this is why utopians are incapable of building anything other than mountains of skulls. The first step to building any lasting legacy is to care about something (usually a principle, but possibly an institution or other person) more than you care about yourself.
-Thomas B. Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
That's funny you mention that quote, I just watched Oblivion yesterday with Tom Cruise and it was a plot point of the film. What are the chances. It's funny how two people can read the same writing and both think it supports their perspectives even though they are opposed.
But I don't think that quote lends support to the "be quietly devoured" side of Nietzsche's dilemma. Do you really think you are facing fearful odds for the ashes of your fathers with a milquetoast non-resistance to an opposition that is tearing down the temples of your gods? You really think "Democrats are the real racists" is you standing against fearful odds when it's the safest (non-)opposition that progressives allow you to have? You will be able to live peacefully with that opposition, that's true, because "Democrats are the real racists" is ultimately paying homage to their gods. You are still adopting their moral compass.
Horatius describing "Standing against fearful odds" obviously honors the bold and the brave opposition- in the context of ancestor worship for that matter, and not the personal salvation of one's own soul. The ancient Romans made mountains of skulls in honor of the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods. And so did any great civilization.
Caring more about the salvation of one's own soul than fighting and winning against a monstrous opposition would be total lunacy to Horatius.
I also object to the implication I am a utopian. I am certainly not. I believe in the deep, inherent conflict of the political and don't believe there's one neat trick that solves it and saves everyone's soul. That's why I care about winning, and think it's a vice for people who should know better, but they stay within the walled garden of their feckless opposition while they make the conscious decision to gracefully lose.
It's not brave at all and it's certainly not the posture that Horatius is honoring in this writing.
I don't have nothing to add other that I loved the passion of your comment: it's making me introspect on how I want to live my life.
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