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 is a bit like suicidal empathy.
The left has gotten good at making these strawman arguments. Where nuance goes out the window. As to your question “no serious person”
Me.
If my choice is we can enforce immigration law but I have to say yes to executing some agitators it’s yes.
It’s the same with shipping 20k Haitians to small town. What are you racists for opposing. If my choice is dropping 20k cultural foreign people into my small town or being racists - I am choosing racists.
The right has moved in a direction of feeling the need to remove any empathy from decision making because if you show one ounce of empathy your cooked. When I was growing up some how we didn’t push things to those extremes. We could paper over issues and not push it that far.
The prototypical lefty in the aughts was I believe Sandy Cohen of the OC who do the do gooder stuff and make the world a better place. But he wouldn’t push things to breaking the social contract with the other side.
I think there are some agitators that understand this and are using it to reinforce the image of ICE (and the larger right in general) as heartless jackbooted thugs. Keep the pressure up and make martyrs for the cause. Force ICE to make mistakes and then hold the evidence up as confirmation of their narrative.
As an aside, my sibling and family came back today from a trip to the US. They called Trump Hitler for what they observed while they were there. Its unsettling to me that that's what they took away from their trip, but they're allowed to draw their own conclusions. I don't think they've thought through what would happen to a nation where a heckler's veto and emotional appeals can prevent border enforcement.
The problem I have with that theory is that as far as I can tell, it's always been their tactic. If anything, they seem surprised it's not working anymore.
Much of the right has decided to switch tactics from the failing "No, they aren't jackbooted thugs" (which is defeated by the left's control of the media) to "YES, TRUMP STOMP!". I doubt this will work better politically but it does annoy the footsoldiers of the left.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll happily take suicidal empathy over homicidal antipathy.
More options
Context Copy link
Do I understand you correctly? Hypothetically, suppose there is an ICE raid on a restaurant and a couple illegal aliens try to run out the back door; are tackled; and are arrested; booked; and sent to jail. Are you saying that under some circumstances, you would support capital charges and execution for such persons?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link