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 -
So the moral truth to this is that a father of two was killed, and regardless of why he was killed shooting people is bad mmmmkay.
How many fathers has Israel killed in its efforts to get the hostages back? If killing fathers of children is always bad, then surely Israel is bad! But of course, Israel is justified in killing those fathers of children, because they hit Israel first. You know what, this is sounding like the morality of a child.
You say not to fall into the leftist trap of "nuance." I say not to fall into the leftist trap of "Something bad happened to [person], therefore [person] must be correct about [ideological question]." That Charlie Kirk got shot doesn't make Charlie any more correct about anything today than he was on Tuesday, just as fag-bashing doesn't make gays correct, lynchings don't change IQ scores, and there's no tranny who could be murdered in such a way that it alters the basic contours of the trans debate.
I don't have to change with every tragedy. Reality certainly won't.
There's this odd tendency to confuse and conflate predictable human overreactions to and political exploitation of tragedies, with some kind of cosmic moral rule of the universe that needs to be followed. Israel was attacked, so Israel "must" respond, Israel has no choice. To ask Israel to consider the consequences of their actions, and how they fit into Israel's long term goals. It was always quite likely that Israel would, of course, make the wrong choices; this doesn't stop a debate club full of contrarians from Noticing the alternatives. Charlie Kirk has been shot tragically and publicly, and as a result we're likely to see a rushed and confused backlash against his perceived killers and in favor of his perceived positions. That this is likely to occur doesn't make it right, doesn't require me to march along in the parade.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong; individual tragedy doesn't change it.
More options
Context Copy link