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 -
The problem I see with vorpa-glavo's comment is that it comes off like they think wokeness itself isn't really something that needs to be addressed, and that it only needs to be occasionally dealt with when it gets out of hand.
I, on the other hand, think it's more of a critical mass thing. Once an ideology reaches a certain scale, it obviously starts to affect the population, and at that point it almost inevitably develops coercive or oppressive elements, regardless of its original intent.
I started to use vorpa-glavo's example of Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses to make that point, but then I stopped and kept my orginal reply short. Nobody really cares about a quirky subculture or religion with strange beliefs so long as it doesn't have political power and control over the mainstream. But imagine instead of there being 1 million Scientologists there were 50 million Scientologists and they disproportionately controlled academia, media, corporate HR departments, and other institutions that affect how we view reality. At that point it wouldn’t just be a quirky and harmless belief system. It would define what is acceptable and what isn't, and it would be influencing policy in drastic ways that many people would not like. That's where we are with wokeness. It doesn't need to be occasionally batted down when it oversteps. We're past that point. It needs to be rooted out and removed.
It seems to me that ideologies vary in terms of how oppressive or coercive they are. For example, consider what could be called "liberal democracy" or "social democracy" -- the sort of ideology that has been ascendant in much of the developed world since after World War II. It seems like it's possible to openly be a Marxist or Communist or Libertarian or whatever in such societies. By contrast, if Marxism is ascendant, it's much more difficult to be an open subscriber to some other ideology.
As another example, one can ask who is more likely to be disrupted: A conservative speaker on a liberal college campus or a liberal speaker on a conservative college campus?
And when you think about it, it kinda makes sense. One of the basic tenets of Wokeness is that white people, as a group, have committed a horrible crime against non-whites and continue to do so. And conservatives help to perpetuate that crime. This would seem to justify quite a bit of coercion and oppression.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link