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 -
Are food allergies another aspect of the culture war? I was reading Reddit and a person was feeding 100 people and someone mentioned to make sure you have all the allergies/food restrictions covered. Being honest I’ve never met anyone with a food restriction I can think of except a lot of brown friends who won’t eat sausage but also have no problem with alcohol.
Ancient religions had a lot of restrictions, now Im borrowing this from elsewhere that the rise of food restrictions is just the same thing as ancients banning certain foods as holy acts. I’ve long argued that the culture wars are less of a culture war and more of a religious war and dietary restrictions are just a modern form of Jews and Muslims banning pork/shellfish etc and Catholics not eating meat on fridays. All religions seem to have focuses on eating and sexual rituals.
I know mental illness has far higher rates amongst lefties. My guess is dietary restrictions and food allergies are much higher in lefties and if your not in that religion it’s something you never think of.
Maybe slightly, just because a lot of leftist I know are a bit neurotic and hypochondriac. Food "sensitivities" are very trendy among them, and they obsess over their state of the mind and body after ingesting seemingly random ingredients that have been brought to their attention, like gluten, soy or nightshades. Then they draw all sorts of spurious conclusions between a food item and some vague, probably psychosomatic phenomena like "brain fog", "bloating" or "gas".
Where as I just laugh about getting death farts after a night of terrible decisions.
But I think you also just notice red tribers with restrictions less, because to them it's nobody else's business. They avoid what they have to avoid, and don't expect the entire world to cater to their diet. Blue tribers seem to think the world revolves around them, and if they can't eat absolutely every food item at a pot luck, nobody should.
Arguing that food sensitivity is a trendy affection popular in lefty circles is... okay, I guess. I can't even say I disagree. Anecdotal observations, even slightly cherrypicked ones, are fine.
But of course you had to finish with a bit of pure culture warring boo outgroup. You've been warned often enough now that it should not surprise you that "Boo blue tribe, so narcissistic and entitled, amirite?" is going to get you another warning. You seem to be determined to keep doing this because you just can't help yourself when there's an opportunity to poke your outgroup in the eye (and, I expect, you will complain again about being told not to do it), so do not pretend to be surprised when your already lengthy record of warnings turns into a ban.
Fair enough, this time. But here is the thing I am increasingly struggling to get.
A user can write paragraphs and paragraphs describing textbook narcissistic behavior. And so long as he doesn't call it narcissism, no problem. The moment someone comes along and goes "Yeah, that's called narcissism." out comes the "You aren't being charitable, that's 'boo outgroup'". It's like we're only allowed to point out the obvious and undeniable transgressions of the successor ideology, and those who follow it, by leaving negative space in the shape of it. The moment you point and go "Yeah, they're derange entitled narcissist" because that's what all the behavior that is being described ad nauseum is examples of, you've crossed a line.
I get it, the project of this place is some sort of open forum where both sides can talk. But increasingly I feel like I'm trapped in a room with cannibals, and it's against the rules to point out how my friends keep disappearing. Or I can make vague statements like "Man, it sure is weird that I haven't seen Steve in three weeks. I mean we're all locked in a room together, it's not like there is anywhere he could have gone. And you sure look well fed." But I'm expected to hope that the secret cannibal will just admit they are a cannibal. I can't point out their obvious cannibalism. Even up to the point I wake up and my own arm is missing, I can't accuse them of anything lest I be accused of "lack of charity".
Edit: Let me give another example, because I am curious how the "rules" would handle this.
Suppose there was a Heaven's Gate cult member here. And he took extreme umbrage that people described it as a suicide cult. He went hard that's uncharitable, and generalizing, and boo outgroup. And no matter how much you tried to point out that all the members of the cult, except for him, killed themselves, he just insisted they didn't. And it's really hurtful, and alienating, and unkind, to keep insisting that they did.
This is how it felt to me watching the groomer debate of a few weeks ago. By every act that we have come to recognize as grooming, grooming is occurring. And yet the side perpetrating it just doggedly claims they aren't, and out go the mod warnings that calling grooming grooming is unkind, uncharitable, generalizing, blah blah blah. What even are these rules? Are they supposed to facilitate truth finding? Or are they supposed to protect malicious actors who can just lie with a straight face and feign indignation? Or people so cognitively mutilated they can't draw the connection between their actions and their consequences?
I think the point is, in the analogy you are locked in the room with 20,000 people on your side and 30,000 people on the other. When Steve vanishes and 20 of the other side look suspiciously fat and are wiping blood off their lips, then you can say that. But you don't get to tar the other 29,980 people in that group just because they are in the opposing group. For that you need evidence all of them ate Steve.
To push it back to the example you used "Blue tribers seem to think the world revolves around them, and if they can't eat absolutely every food item at a pot luck, nobody should." That is the equivalent of noticing some people in your opposing group are bossy picky eaters and extrapolating that to the Blue Tribe itself with no further evidence of that. Either you need evidence it applies to all of them OR restrict the critique to those who do the bad thing X themselves.
Note that mod feedback said your open was ok, where you said: "Maybe slightly, just because a lot of leftist I know are a bit neurotic and hypochondriac." because you restricted that to a sub set of leftists that you knew personally rather than all leftists. So a subset, informed by your observations.
I'm not a mod, but that is the difference that struck me.
The other 29,979 are bleating about "charity", and the 1 that goes "Hey... maybe you are onto something" vanishes next.
Then you need to say that and possibly evidence it before you can extrapolate it to groups. That's the rule to try and keep this place somewhat palatable to everyone (as much as possible of course). But even then notice you are bringing in more nuance!
Some of the Blue Tribe think the world revolves around them and others within the Blue Tribe enable them because X Y and Z is a more nuanced take that enables discussion more than Blue Tribe X.
Again I'm not a mod, but if you think all Blue Tribe bad, then it's going to be tricky to exist in a space which explicitly wants both Blue and Red to talk to each other constructively and so limits how broadly you can generalize your outgroup to be bad without doing a lot of work to back it up.
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