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 -
You could always do "A Negro living in . . . "
And you have to know where I'm coming from. I grew up in the seventies, when the Washington DC area had hardly any non-European immigrants. Things were a lot simpler back in my formative years; neighborhoods were either white or black (and nearly all the blacks lived in remote areas I never visited).
Had I lived in LA or El Paso as a kid, I might feel differently, but I will always feel in my heart that third-world immigrants remain foreigners no matter how long they've lived here.
Additionally, my post was partly a reaction to a new mortal sin among the left: mentioning someone's ethnicity if they're anything other than "generic white" except in a very few special cases, most of which involve denouncement of "white supremacy". The specific Reddit post that reminded me of this was basically: a woman met another woman in a coffee shop or something, first woman thinks she made a new friend, but second woman was just out to recruit for Amway.
The natural assumption was that both were white, but late in the post, it was mentioned #2 had recently immigrated from Nigeria.
I guarantee you that if this had happened in 1990, the account would have started, "So I met this black woman with a foreign accent, and . . . "
Ethnicity is important! It's vital for getting a proper mental picture of the situation, and I don't like having important details deliberately concealed.
Just my two cents.
Where you're coming from doesn't seem to justify it.
You might be able to justify "a Culmore man is a man who lives in Culmore and accepts American culture", but surely black people can qualify for that.
More options
Context Copy link
My point was that the black man's ancestors have lived there as long as his white neighbour's ancestors have; thus if his familial tenure is insufficient to make him a '_____ man', then his white neighbour would be 'An Englishman living in _____'.
...and you're upset that someone moved your cheese?
What about first-world immigrants? If someone was born in London, will he always be British to you?
My understanding of the left's argument is that:
1, ethnicity isn't relevant in many circumstances; her being from Nigeria had nothing to do with her recruiting for Amway. (Maybe it would have been relevant if she had claimed to have received an inheritance of $50 MILLIOIN[sic] USD DOLLARS and needed to borrow $500 for legal fees....)
...what if we were to include the ethnicity of everyone including white people?
"Miguel Gutierrez, a Culmore man of Salvadoran origin, ... James Baker, an East Culmore man of English origin...."
"So I met this white guy with an American accent...."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link