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 isn't really related to anything, but in the process of reading that article I noticed the word "ungrammatical' used--
And I immediately wanted to complain that Ingram was using a coinage that mixes a germanic prefix ("un-") with a latinate root word ("grammar", from old french) and semi-redundant latinate suffixes ("ic" from the latin "icus" and "-al" from the latin "-alis"). I double checked and it turns out that "ungrammatical" really is the common form of the word, but now I'm irrationally pissed that 16th century british people didn't use the etymologically superior "ingrammatic/al". Anyways--
Without refuting your point (which I quite agree with) about why people are angry, I think delving one level deeper into the meta-cause of this anger requires understanding more generally that the entertainers people get the most heated about are the elites of particular subcultures generally excluded from what in victoria 3 terms I'd call america's "primary cultures." There's a particular sort of small landholder for which small-town america is traditionally famous for, and they're well respected and at least putatively represented by the agrobusiness lobby. Similarly, cops and soldiers have generals and astronauts in office; engineers have tech billionaires; schoolteachers have famous college professors; and so forth. When the elites of these accepted groups publicly speak about politics, people often complain about the content, but rarely seem to draw the connection that they're doing functionally the same thing as entertainers. Look at Black Science Guy, for example-- people hate the man fora variety of reasons, but the objects are typically specific to his personality and opinions rather than generally against the nation that he should have a right to speak at all. That's because even his political opponent acknowledge that the subculture for which he is an elite , (scientists in general), has the right to speak about politics in general. But there's far more vitriol when someone who is part of a non-accepted culture opines on politics, and the elite of a non-accepted culture opinion on politics is just a special case of that. People hate prostitutes/gooners, so they don't want to talk politics with Bonnie. Blue. They hate devout evangelicals so they don't want to hear from Tim Tebow. They hate "urban youth," so they don't want to hear Lebron or Johnny Somali. They hate the kind of people who have a collection of rare pepes or watch cheesy game shows (this is a supergroup of various red-tribers; middle-class retirees, unemployed trailer park dwellers, basement dwelling men, stay-at-home moms in rural areas, etc.) so they don't want to hear from Donald Trump.
That, I think, is the implicit complaint underlying, "this dumb entertainer that makes too much money making something stupid shouldn't talk about politics."
More options
Context Copy link