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 -
Which is the inherent risk when [your local political body, henceforth referred to as "you"] decide you either won't follow the existing law, or are unable or unwilling to spend the political capital to change it to something your community can accept.
This isn't a hard concept to understand[1], and all Imperial (or Federal, which is just Imperialism within a border) systems do this, for this exact reason- because they won't care about your local community standards and the nuances therein. The Soviets didn't use Hungarian or Czech soldiers to put down the uprisings in those countries; they chose people not from those areas specifically because painting the people in those areas of the Soviet Empire as a simple adversary is more effective that way.
It is not, and should not, be the Hmong's problem that they [and their representatives and other power-brokers in their local community] has decided to put themselves in opposition to these policies- and the fact they in particular are being burdened at outsized rates simply for looking more like the stereotype of the average trafficked human is most regrettable (and indeed, SE Asia really isn't where the human traffickers were canvassing for subjects anyway- but their skin color is somewhat comparable, which is what matters).
But much like the abortion question before this, you have systems for finalizing durable consensus, and I suggest you use them. "Deciding not to spare the power to do these things because we can just ram it through the branches of government that don't work on consensus" is what has caused your system to flip-flop so destructively in the first place.
Remember that whole "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make a violent one inevitable" thing? Media is soapbox, legislature is ballot box, executive/judicial is jury box, and direct paramilitary/military action is ammo box. And I believe you're solidly in "jury" now.
[1] Unless your socioeconomic standing requires you not understand it, which is the impulse that drives war more generally. Power exists, and is desirable, because fairness is fundamentally undecidable.
More options
Context Copy link