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 -
There are degrees of clarity about whether someone rejects principles.
It's like punching Nazis. Punching Nazis has the same problem--people tend to categorize everyone they dislike as Nazis so they get to punch them. But we don't want to say "the US shouldn't have invaded Nazi Germany in the 1940s. After all, if you make it permissible to hurt Nazis, you'll end up calling everyone you hate Nazis".
The justification for US invading Nazi Germany wasn't because US hated Nazis, though. US invaded them because their allies attacked US and also they declared war on US, IIRC. Rejecting "punching Nazis" doesn't mean rejecting "punching anyone who is a Nazi," it's rejecting "merely being a Nazi means that that person deserves to be punched." If Hitler in the 30s hung out at home jerking it all day to fantasies of his Nazi ideology dominating the Earth or whatever and took no steps to make it happen through violence, I don't think it would be justified to go and kill him or drive him to suicide just because he happens to have Nazi opinions. It's that he and other Nazis decided to commit violence and commit to future violence against US that justified US attacking the Nazis.
With Nazis, one can also make a humanitarian case for attacking them so that the minorities they oppress don't get oppressed. But that, too, would be in reaction to the act of oppressing minorities, not their opinion that "minorities ought to be oppressed" or whatever. Again with the Hitler jerking it at home example, except fantasizing about murdering Jews or something. Of course, this also does mean that the label "oppresses minorities" becomes a useful one to stick on to people one dislikes, which is why we'd also need an extremely high bar for what counts as "oppresses minorities" to the point of justifying violence.
More options
Context Copy link
Killing Nazis is a pretty decent representation of the concept.
Self-avowed/identified Nazis are tacitly or explicitly in favor of genociding Jews, of course.
Which is to say, committing a little homicide on them is easily within bounds.
And scale it up to Nation-State size. "Well you clearly established that you're okay with military invasion and occupation of neighboring countries, can't very well complain that we invaded and occupied you.
(This runs into the issue I talked about elsewhere, that you should do you best to target retribution at the actually responsible parties.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link