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 -
... the problem is that there's two models, here.
One is that the Gay Rights Movement won by a campaign of sympathetic figure you knew in your community, and sometimes even were in your family, showing that People Could Be People. I'd like to believe this is true, and contemporaneously it's the argument I pushed for (admittedly, to a level of slower progress that would frustrate me today).
The other is that it won by absolutely crushing any disagreement. Brendan Eich did, in fact, lose his job, and people did, in fact, beat him in public and years later were quite proud of it. Code Pink would publicly embarrass you, Google would (accept third parties gaming their tech to) redirect searches with your last name to a definition involving scatological jokes, people would shitpost at sizable length about hurting every single person who didn't agree. More critically, entire infrastructure were designed and implemented to make this not just common, or standard, but unchallengable: even before Bostock and Obergfell a wide number of states and regulators held that saying mean things -- defined so broadly as to include religious or philosophical discussion -- were workplace discrimination, even if uttered off-premises and after-hours. Organizations built to foster political debate on the wrong side of the aisle were skinsuitted, and that skinsuiting became something they were required to aid and abet. For the majority of its advocates, and a supermajority of its more palatable advocates, you could not argue the soccon position.
I would like to believe that the former mattered more than the latter. I don't have a lot of arguments that the latter hurt.
More options
Context Copy link