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, uncharitable it is. Dan Carlin sources his stories very well. They often have a slight, particular slant to them because of his political leanings, but I would not call him a "liar" who posts trivially debunked (there's that word again) stories that contradict "basic factual knowledge" (cf. "basic logic," "basic human decency"). Dan Carlin emphasizese a specific set of facts to spin a particular narrative. Some people say this means all history is bunk, but IMHO that's a uselessly sweeping and reductive judgement. There is no narrative-free history.
This complaint is always levelled in bad faith at people who try to understand the internal state of the "bad guys." If you try to explain, even with disavowels, why e.g. how Communists came to power in Russia by tapping into legitimate grievances that certain groups had, you will invariably be called a Communist sympathizer by those on the right too idiotic to understand hypotheticals or too Machiavellian to feel shame. I see little to indicate that you're an idiot.
Am I supposed to shrink back in fear at this? So what? Your words have no power here. I've been jaded by the pearl-clutching about "our democracy" by libs for the last decade.
He isn't, and you don't get to smuggle your tendentious accusation into the question, sorry. As for why he is telling this story, he is doing it for the same reason he told the stories of the Zionist Jews, the Palestinians, the (leftist!) People's Temple, the (leftist!) early labor movement in the U.S. -- because he thinks it's important to tell stories from within the frame and perspective of the people who lived that story, rather than as a "neutral" or baised outsider. An impossible goal, but a worthwhile aspiration (and given how preoccupied leftists are with lived experience, you'd think they would approve, but instead it's just another case of "no not like that!!"). Do you think Cooper is a People's Temple booster? A Zionist Jew sympathizer (Check his Twitter to find out about that one)?
There's that word again. There's nothing I can really say in response to this that won't get me in trouble, so let me just recommend that you find a more effective line of attack, because scolding and panicking about "fascism" is so 2017, it doesn't work on anyone anymore save the most dyed in the wool leftists. And it undermines any concern you are trying to create in me about "reactionary authoritarianism."
More options
Context Copy link