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 -
Two BBC bosses, Director-General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness, both resigned after a scathing dossier (full memo) was published days ago, showcasing strong bias in BBC's reporting.
An example from the dossier where BBC's partiality may be readily observed, without requiring to into the weeds of culture war issues, is BBC produced special, airing a week before the most recent US presidential election about Donald J. Trump. In the part of the spcial about the 1-6 Incident, editor had spliced together without indication of doing so, Trump quotes an hour apart:
So near the beginning of his speech, Trump stated:
Then, roughly an hour later:
As quoted in the allegedly biased pre-election special:
(Also in video form)
Also elaborated upon in the dossier are bias in reoprting on the US POTUS election generally, alledging without evidence the existence of racial discrimination in insurance, covering up illegal immigration, distorting opinions of historians to promote racially incendiary historical narratives, parroting the LGBTQ activist line regarding transsexuality. Coverage of the local consequences of the 10-7 Incident is in particular depth critiqued.
Here is the punchline: Mr. Davie had in the past worked issued guidelines which would have been violated, if these accusations are true. He is more closely associated with the Conservative, rather than Labour, party. Strange that a man who can be accused of at most trying and failing to correct the ship, resigns. Now with Labour in power, the person replacing him will be more likely to be sympathetic to those who feel called out by this dossier and less likely to see the dossier as pointing at a real issue.
With a reputable report, whose accusations are confirmed by resignations, showing leftist bias in media, trust in media takes another hit.
As someone on the left I can assure you that the BBC is not in any way representative of actual left wing thought, or indeed the views of the left wing base. They represent and serve the interests of the establishment, with no real consistent political valence beyond that. They were relentlessly hostile to Jeremy Corbyn and still are - despite the fact that he's who the left actually wanted representing him. I'm not saying they don't hate Trump, far from it - but their hatred stems not from his being a conservative but from him disrespecting the established political order.
And, of course, there's the Palestine issue - the BBC's editor in charge of reporting on this topic, Raffi Berg, is utterly devoted to Israel and the Mossad. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/bbc-middle-east-editor-suing-said-mossad-made-him-proud
I don't think you can really call a news organisation with an editor like this remotely leftist even if they hadn't already spent hundreds of hours trying to get rid of a leftist candidate.
The BBC are establishment progressives. They do largely adhere to the status quo, except on cultural issues where they are invariably well to the left.
That one of their editors appears to be a bit of Zionist apparently had no impact on their fawning coverage of Hamas talking points, as demonstrated in the reply right below yours. It's a similar argument that Davie and Turness are both Tory appointments with conservative leanings; somehow it didn't prevent the BBC from this blunder, or the hundreds of Gaza blunders, or their "LGBTQ desk" somehow getting veto power over any and all trans related articles.
This isn't actually true at all. People have done the research - the numbers were even included in that article. But if you want another source... https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/israel-palestine-bbc-news-coverage-bias-gaza-war/
The main reason people believe there's any equivalency is that zionists tend to be incredibly histrionic and react with screaming meltdowns at the idea that anyone could oppose their genocidal ethnostate. Here we have a media organisation that the evidence shows is objectively biased towards the zionist perspective, and yet zionists still wail and whine that their coverage of "Hamas talking points" is fawning or that they committed hundreds of Gaza blunders when the evidence is clear that the coverage was objectively and explicitly (as confirmed by Raffi Berg) biased in their favor.
I'm on the left but I agree this was bad - I don't think that trans issues have been handled well by the left at all. At the same time I don't think that a genuine concern for trans people was behind this coverage, but I'm not really going to fight you on this issue. You're right, it is a problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link