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 -
I think this is an eminently reasonable position. However, I disagree with it, and I have another position which I consider just as reasonable, but more convincing. Which is that, without overwhelming tyrannical force, no one individual, organization, or even side can control the Overton Window. Despite the recent performance by the modern left, such tyrannical force just isn't viable in America, certainly not in the long run (except maybe in the really long run where America as we know it doesn't exist anymore). As such, we can't rely on our ability to keep Nazism out of the Overton window; so we should have ample protections against it when it does enter the Overton window, so that it doesn't go from "within the Overton window" to "ruling us by convincing enough people."
And I see no better way to prepare such defenses than analyzing and practicing against the best, strongest, most well-developed and convincing versions of their arguments, put forth by their smartest, most charismatic proponents. Just like how any professional athlete will tell you that no amount of practice scrimmages against teammates can make up for actual playtime against an opposing team in terms of teaching one's flaws and building resilience and grit. For that to occur, we need these people to argue with each other and with us, so as to better refine their ideas and arguments. This can only happen openly if their ideas are in the Overton window. So I want it in there. Otherwise, I'd be dealing with artificially weak versions of their arguments and/or be ignorant of what they're cooking up outside my view. Leaving me worse prepared for defending against them.
I don't think my reasoning is foolproof or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And I certainly wouldn't condemn people who want to keep Nazism outside the Overton window as being secret Nazi sympathizers who want to leave society vulnerable for when they've gathered enough power on the margins outside the Overton window to pounce. Because I know that they have their own thinking, a way of thinking that I think is reasonable that makes them believe that they're actually helping to prevent the rise of Nazism in our society in the future. I think they're reasonable and wrong, but it's being wrong that is their crime, not supporting Nazism.
More options
Context Copy link