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 -
"Antifa activists" is a parallel to "Environmental activists". You can't be a member of "Environmental" either, because it's just an idea, not an organization.
Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.
Antifa is the leftiest of the left wing, so its adherents use tactics like "[not] Fucking Tell[ing] Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand". 1984 may have overreached a bit when it said if you can't name something you can't think about it (hence the Party making Newspeak), but it sure does make it harder to legislate against something if you can't establish a definition first.
Why is it "as it should be" to look at environmentalists using low resolution? Surely there is a significant difference between a scientist studying climate change models who calls for using less fossil fuels, on the one hand, and Ted Kaczynski on the other. And plenty of people make the distinction, indeed it is unusual not to.
Notice that you yourself picked two particularly militant examples of environmentalists.
Even if you mean "nobody cares about that fine distinction for militant environmentalists", that is not true. Most people make a distinction between people who throw paint on museum pieces and Ted Kaczynski, and recognize that not only do their actions have different moral qualities, but they can also in no way be said to be part of the same organization. Indeed, since Kaczynski acted alone, his actions cannot be characterized as being the actions of any environmentalist association whatsoever.
To look at people who share common (or somewhat common) goals and philosophies as belonging to a coherent entity is the type of low resolution thinking that perhaps makes sense in the face of an existential threat, when there is no time to try to use higher resolution and to do so would decrease one's emotional willingness to fight, but even in that kind of a situation it would be just an expedient, not something that is good in itself.
Unless you specifically mean Ted Kaczynski, and not violent eco-activists generally, this is complete nonsense, and of course people think they're a part of the same movement.
The reason Kaczynski doesn't fit is that he was following a different set of ideas than environmentalism, not because he was violent.
Even the militancy is hardly relevant. Few people bother drawing distinctions between violent and not violent Nazis, or violent and non-violent Jihadis.
Jihadis and Nazis, whether non-violent or violent, are pursuing evil aims. At least some environmentalists are pursuing good aims.
Bringing humanity to the light of Allah, doesn't sound evil in and of itself to me, and even a good leftist will find lots to agree with even in the OG Nazi party platform. So I don't see a reason to allow this kind of picking and choosing for one, but not the other.
I don't think this is the same kind of "picking and choosing". Sure, not all the aims of jihadis and Nazis are evil, but all jihadis and Nazis pursue at least some evil aims - whereas many (most?) environmentalists have wholly good aims. Thus any given jihadi or Nazi, even if they're non-violent, has some amount of evil intent, while the same is not true of a given non-violent environmentalist.
(And anyway, insofar as "bringing humanity to the light of Allah" is ultimately a euphemism for "enslaving humanity to the tyrannical will of a supernatural being" I would consider that an evil aim in itself, even before the specific of shariah law are taken into account.)
How do you know that every Nazi / Jihadi signs on to the evil parts as well?
That sounds like something only an evil person would say.
Also, in an attempt to prove that we shouldn't treat all environmentalists as evil, you just condemned not only every Muslim, but every religious person on the planet.
Not every religion teaches that humans should submit totally to the will of the divine in the way fundamentalist Islam teaches. Even among faiths whose teachings could be phrased this way, it is by no means a majority who hold that it is acceptable or desirable to force such submission at the point of a sword, or that people who won't convert should, all else being equal, be killed rather than allowed to live outside the faith, which I would define as the key beliefs that mark a "jihadi".
(I think it's, empirically, entirely possible to be a Muslim without being a jihadi, so I don't mean to be condemning "every Muslim" - though it does require taking certain liberties with the text of the Quran which I don't think any major Muslim authorities would publicly endorse.)
...who just so happen to cover vast swathes of the world population...
We were talking about the goals themselves being evil, you shifted the goalposts to the means of achieving the goals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link