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 -
Violence is an inherently high-variance activity. Those who whine about the necessity of violence are fundamentally immature.
There's a common scene in street fights where a girl starts a fight, drags her man into it, then impedes him in the fight so he loses. This is the basic strategy of the political left, and the psychology that underwrites it is identical.
This does seem truly hard to grasp if you've only ever experienced physical violence in the abstract. i.e if you've never been punched in the face.
Even if you watch professional fights, the rulesets in those arenas are optimized to avoid the actions that can cause instant incapacitation or grievous harm/death, and the competitors are fighting with less than lethal intent.
Take away the refs, rules, and moral restraints... any given strike COULD be a life-changer or life-ender. Quadruple that if weapons are involved.
For me, and I think most 'right-thinking' humans, this means you avoid violence as long as possible because you mostly lose control of the outcomes once it comes to that.
And on the flipside, it means you don't let opponents implement violence unilaterally, both for the deterrent effect and to prevent your side from being the sole recipient of the the consequences.
But there is as you say a group of people who see this reluctance to get violence as an exploitable 'weakness'. Push the line to force some violent response and then hope for those fat-tailed outcomes to result. Then claim the fat-tailed outcome was SOLELY the fault of one side for acting out.
And it is a lot easier to implement this strategy if you can convince your low-agency ideological followers to become human fodder.
Even 'violence' against property carries this risk with it. One image that stuck with me from the BLM era is the protestor getting clobbered by a falling confederate statue.
Its a very, very stupid thing being done, on so many levels. This is fucking around with the laws of physics and finding out quite immediately. One second you're celebrating the fall of racism with your buddies... the next you're in a vegetative state.
But the human body is indeed resilient so he survived... for some definitions of that term.
Here's a terrifying line that I hope is never written about me:
In some very similar timelines that guy is just straight up dead. In some he's grievously injured but not traumatically brain damaged. And in a few he dodges fate by a few scant inches. High variance indeed.
Incidentally, this is why I think the saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is an extraordinarily bad sentiment to believe in the context of physical violence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link