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 -
I've seen it first hand and I don't think it's Nihilism so much as a particular interpretation of Rawlsian Ethics that is almost a reductio ad absurdum.
My impression of is that they have this idea "Equality" that functionally boils down to "equal outcomes" which sounds nice in theory but it leads them to this weird theory of "Justice" where in the morality (or "Justness") of any act or actor is largely if not entirely determined by power differential. This idea of "Punching up" which is is a fundamentally noble act versus "Punching down" which is a fundamentally ignoble act.
Because the goal is equality, they feel they must simultaneously moderate "the strong" while elevating "the weak". Which again sounds nice in theory, and might even appear somewhat workable in a staid collegiate setting but it leads to deeply perverse positions when applied outside the classroom. Positions like;
and
This can be demonstrated untrue by asking those you think hold to this belief system their opinion on Nazi Germany in 1945. Unsurprisingly, no, they do not flip to liking the Nazis once the Nazis are being unambiguously punched down upon. They just like Hamas and like Iran.
See my reply to @MayorofOysterville. Also, Rawls' Theory of Justice wasn't published until 1971, 26 years after Nazi Germany surrendered.
Does Rawls propose a statute of limitations on morality?
I am also talking about those affluent liberals. They do not believe what you claim they do, because they don't support the Nazi underdogs you imply they would.
No. Rawls does not propose a statute of limitations on morality, but it is kind of silly of you to expect people to be familiar with his work more than two decades before it was published.
I am asking what they would think of the Nazis in 1945 in retrospect, because most of them do have retrospective opinions on the Nazis still.
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
I really don't think you are modeling this correctly. The far left was still pro-Palestine when the Arabs were stronger than Israel. As a result of Soviet propaganda, and principles of national liberation. The original PLO and Palestinian cause was much more secular, much more leftist and inline with many other "national liberation" groups that the far left liked. The far left in general doesn't like Hamas and in in group discussions frequently blames Israel for creating Hamas and "tainting" the Palestinian cause.
Israel is also just in the far lefts outgroup in fact it's one of the most hated outgroups they have. Just like in the original I can tolerate anything but the outgroup they can tolerate Hamas even if they don't love them but have a burning hatred of Israel. It's not a function of power dynamics if the Palestinians somehow came out on top and actually did drive the Jews into the sea they wouldn't flip sides because Israel is inherently evil and tainted for them.
I'm talking specifically about the sort of affluent liberal who attends a George Floyd or Free Palestine rally, and the posters here who are acting like the current conflict with Iran hasn't been decades in the making. People like Alex.
Not historical Soviets nor Soviet sympathizers.
Affluent liberals who attend such things want all sorts of people punished many of them weaker. And while they aren't Soviet sympathizers the chain of transmission of their support for Palestine comes from a 70s milieu who were Soviet sympathizers. Also affluent liberals are pretty divided about Israel-Palestine. It's their children who are hardcore anti-Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link