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 -
Society has been built on a lot of things for the entirety of its existence and right down to the then-present day, until people started to realise that it was wrong.
The Industrial Revolution greatly facilitated this process, which is why I consider degrowthism/primitivism/anticivilisationism to be unwise on the level of tickling a sleeping dragon.
I do not like the wokists' excesses either; that's why I came here!
Because many (of at least the central examples of) hate crimes have two parts: the direct victimisation of one or a few individuals (e. g. a Black person beaten after registering to vote), and the threat to thousands or millions of others (other Black people deciding whether they ought to register to vote).
Which, if you are referring to Dresden and Tokyo, I do not condone. (If we hadn't done so, we could've added charges for Coventry to the Nuremberg Trials.)
When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, communication faster than a horse or sailing ship had never been implemented in the real world.
Freeing women from the drudgery of hand-washing clothes had never been implemented in the real world.
Eradicating an infectious disease had never been implemented in the real world.
In other words,
This would be a good argument if it came with evidence that people had, in fact, realized that it was wrong in some generalized fashion, as opposed to realizing it was wrong exclusively in the context of when they were on the bad end of the consequences.
A lot of people don't like a lot of things, and yet those things persist.
To the extent that the excesses of woke have been pushed back, they have been pushed back by tribal identity and tribal warfare. Vibes, papers and essays accomplished nothing; re-electing Trump accomplished much more. Opinions are irrelevant, what matters is what people are actually willing to do.
you are describing the pathway from the individual to the collective. You cannot actually quantify the collective impact of a crime against a black person in any meaningful way. Hate Crime laws do not attempt a rigorous analysis of the individual impacts; they simply assume collective impact and proceed from that assumption. And modulo some quibblings about strategy and focus, they are correct to do so: Collectives exist, matter, and must be managed if complex society is to continue existing. Naive atomic individualism is a delusion that cannot be sustained in the real world.
Whether you condone it or not, our society clearly has condoned it, and will continue to condone it in the future. Your disapproval is a personal quirk, not a reflection of the moral structure by which our society maintains itself.
"The poor will always be with you." Reality intrudes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link