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 -
This analogy begins with questionable premises, but if we decide to go with it, one super-common issue it raises is how often do abusive parents believe they're not being abusive but are rather being nurturing? IME, almost no one likes to believe themselves as being abusive towards others, and this is no different among people who are, factually, abusive abusers. As such, the modal abusive parent (or husband or wife or whatever) genuinely believes that they're not being abusive, but are rather being nurturing. As such, any parent who is motivated to nurture a child must demonstrate openness to being convinced that what they see as nurturing is actually abusive, especially when they're sure that they're actually being nurturing.
By this analogy, it's pretty clear that these center-left politicians in question were mothers who were being told both by their older child and by tons of independent observers that she was being abusive and refused to entertain the possibility, because by their model of parenting, what appeared to the child and to independent observers as "abusive" was actually "nurture." Perhaps they're correct that it is actually "nurture;" however, the lack of concern for the possibility that it might not be is a reflection of an utter lack of motivation to actually nurture that older child.
This is complicated by the fact that the younger child is also dead certain that they need this sort of nurturing and said child is sometimes clearly worse off . One might even grant that you're making the better off child slightly worse off and still believe the trade off is not only worth it but fair.
And there are, of course, observers and experts on both sides. There are plenty of others who will insist that the problem is that they haven't directed enough attention and effort to an underperforming child.
Imagine a mother steeped in a certain ideology, she reads only so many books a year but the ones on parenting involve figures with impressive degrees egging her on. She has some reason to continue.
I don't think this complicates things at all, actually. One can listen to the younger child being dead certain* in this while also spending exactly as much time and effort as required to seriously consider the older child's complaint that she's being abused (with exactly as verifiable and commonly-found examples of the older child being clearly worse off, of course). One can consider either argument and still reject them; it's very possible that it is actually true that the older child being abused by her own perception is what's required for justice to be done and for the younger child not to be abused. But it's incumbent on the parent to credibly come to this conclusion by demonstrating a willingness to seriously consider the possibility that the older child has a point. Which is where, in this analogy, this didn't happen.
* The analogy breaks down even more here due to comparing populations with individuals - whatever population analogue of the younger child is, they certainly weren't "dead certain" that the type of zero-sum-style oppression-Olympics "progressive" politics pushed by center-left politicians were actually preferable the alternative of an egalitarian politics based around equal rights and free speech. At most, a small majority of some subgroups were "dead certain" of this sort of thinking, but also there has always been a sizable portion - often a majority, depending on the subgroup - who were "dead certain" of the opposite. Making this analogy work would be tough, but it might be like if the child, like many children, goes to different moods and beliefs, and half the time he's dead certain that abusing his older sister is the only way he can feel like justice has been served and another half the time he's apologizing for getting into that mood.
Of course, we should also apply this to the older sibling; sometimes, she's insisting that the abuse she claims other times is actually not abuse, but justice that she deserves, to make the family better, to make her better, and to make her little brother better off. Other times; she's insisting that that's actually abuse. If we continue this analogy like the above, I'd wager the ratio of times of those would be quite skewed in favor of the latter, relative to ratios of what the younger child is saying.
But the analogy is probably stretched beyond use at this point, and it's moot anyway; even presuming that the younger child was "dead certain," this doesn't really add complication.
Absolutely. Not only fair, but morally obligated. It's very possible that this is the case. It's also very possible that this isn't the case. The only person worth trusting with the power to make such a judgment call is someone who has demonstrated a willingness to, in good faith, listen to arguments in favor of both. And, I'd add, a willingness to listen more to people who disagree with oneself; e.g. if the parent has been told by others that he's playing favorites by favoring child A over child B, he should be extra receptive and welcoming of criticisms from child B (or on behalf of child B, though that has many more points of possible failure) relative to criticisms from child A. That doesn't mean being convinced by the former over the latter; it means prioritizing the truth over one's own biases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link