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 -
After the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination I absolutely don't care about this, and will never care about anything like this from my own side ever again. OP wildly overestimates the number of fucks the right has left to give.
…did you ever?
I’ve found the people most interested in policing comments about Kirk are the ones who were already jumping at the bit.
I did. The whole reason I got into /r/SSC and The Motte is because I thought they represented a chance for dialogue between the two sides, and a chance for each of us to say "I guess they make some good points sometimes", come together, and either forge a common path, or at least forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side. All I got for the trouble was "not good enough" said in so many ways, and a litany of denials that there's anything wrong with the progressive side, and that if I think otherwise, it's because I'm being uncharitable.
Now... you know me (and I know me), I know I'm prone to sperging out at times, but I was actually trying, but at this point, why bother? This isn't even accusatory, I know your heart's in the right place, but I know that you and people like you are incapable of stopping the things I find offensive and distasteful that come from your side, so why should I police mine?
Well, "morality" would be the obvious reason why. Policing evil on one's own side is desirable in itself, by definition. If my brother has gone crazy then it is my duty to do something about it, whether or not my neighbor is dealing with his crazy brother.
Your brothers are crazy and I've never seen a single indication that you even think it's a problem. You just engage in pure "arguments as soldiers" arguing.
But by all means, show us the way. Demonstrate some policing of your own side.
Again, morality is not a tit-for-tat game. If you actually believe people on your own side to be evil then you have a duty to oppose them if it is in your power. Whataboutism regarding the outgroup's bad behavior is simply not relevant, no matter how bad that behavior is!
You have to be trolling, right? This is the most naked and shameless call for a double standard I've ever seen.
Everything you just said also applies to you. If morality is not tit-for-tat, then you still have an obligation to police your own side. And you don't even engage with the concept! Just slide right past it and press the attack. It's like you're brain damaged, or suffering some kind fo anti-memetic effect.
Or just egregiously obnoxious.
Which I do! I didn't emphasize the point because like, you have to take my word for it. I'm not going to self-doxx and I'm not important enough to make an observable difference on the general state of leftist discourse. But I happily acknowledge that I have a duty to push back against evil in my own Tribe. I have never claimed otherwise, and I do not claim the behavior of the Red Tribe affects this duty in any way. Red Tribers in this thread are the people who claimed that defection on the Blue Tribe's part freed them from any responsibility to oppose evil among their tribesmen, and that is the claim I sought to refute. That my own position on evil in my own Tribe reflected the values I espoused, I thought was obvious from context and didn't need to be spelled out.
I also want to emphasize that I am not saying "Red Tribers have a responsibility to repress fellow Red Tribers whom I, a Blue Triber, deem evil". I am saying "Red Tribers have a responsibility to repress fellow Red Tribers whom they consider evil by their own standards" - eg if you're Right-wing but consider slavery to be evil then you should be putting genuine effort into opposing slavery apologists on your own side. If you don't claim to consider slavery apologia evil, or if you don't think people currently accused of being slavery apologists are actually pro-slavery, then fine! Where I push back is when they say "sure, I agree slavery is evil and that there are pro-slavery crazies in the Red Tribe, but the Blue Tribe doesn't punish its equally-evil pro-assassination crazies so why should I lift a finger to stop my crazies?", which I think is a morally untenable, hypocritical stance.
It would help if you, pseudonymynous poster, gave an example of something you acknowledge as "evil on your own side" and said that it is bad, as an existence proof. This would earn you credibility on this topic, which you currently lack.
Sort of like the fairly highly upvoted post I made here calling neonazis "contemptible retards".
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link