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'm honestly pretty confused by this paragraph. By my definition in this example, you have advocated for violence. Advocating for violence is not the same as committing violence. Furthermore, if you want to say that advocating for violence in the sense of pushing for the state's monopoly on violence to be wielded in some direction is violence, it seems to me that, again, you're saying that, in the realm of politics, all words are swords. Again, fair enough if that's your worldview (but, again, then that raises the question of why you decided to point to this specific incident as if his status as a sword-user differentiated him from any other person who has ever stated a political opinion with the intent to change government policy, i.e. campaigned). I think some nuance between words and violence is valuable for keeping modern Western civilization as prosperous and easy to survive in, but there's plenty of room for me to be wrong.
So, again, there's a difference between convincing someone to enact violence and enacting violence oneself. Depending on the case, e.g. ordering a hitman to murder someone, the former can be just as bad as the latter. That doesn't make them equivalent or the same. I do believe that there's a significant difference in the "violence" committed by someone lobbying AOC or even AOC herself and the "violence" committed by Mangione such that, if we decide to redefine "violence" to include things like the former, then we'd have to create subcategories of "violence" such that we're comparing like for like. Because the word "violence" is just a label, after all, and the point of separating it out from argumentation is that there's something meaningfully different between enacting violence itself and saying something, even if that saying is advocating for actions that play out in violence (i.e. literally every law ever).
More options
Context Copy link