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 -
Can you please expand on this? Are you arguing that there are two politically effective ways to combat the process? Maybe more?
The opposite, I'm saying the anti-woke coalition is a mixed-marriage between people who think that wokeness is wrong because the theory is bad, and people who think the theory is good it should just be applied to a different group. The former are horrified by the latter, the latter think the former are moral mutants and cowards.
Take as our basic woke concept "if you criticize the actions of BlackTM Folx, it's because you are racist and bad. Any bad outcome for BlackTM Folx is due to Systemic Racism, even if the people in power are not and would not be racist. Policies can explicitly help BlackTM Folx, but if they even implicitly hurt BlackTM Folx, then they are racist and bad."
There's a large portion of people who disagree with that concept! But they don't all disagree for the same reasons.
Some people disagree with the process. It's stupid and reductive to attribute everything to an -ism, any -ism. Identitarianism harms the group you're trying to help by stifling their drive for success, removing their internal locus of control, leading them to attribute all their failures to nebulous "haters." Every group, and every member of that group, can do bad things and be bad people, no matter how much Oppression the group may have faced before. Affirmative Action is bad because it undermines meritocracy, etc.
Other people disagree with the targets, but love the process and want to use the same process but for other groups. BlackTM Folx fail because of their bad genes or bad culture, but any criticism of Jews should be met with thought terminating screeches of ANTISEMITISM. Affirmative Action was bad when it was targeted at BlackTM Folx, but it should be targeted at white Christian Conservatives, who are the real oppressed. Etc.
Both very divergent ideologies are labeled as "anti-woke" and travel under the label, but they're diametrically opposed. One group wants free speech on campus even if the speech is offensive; the other thought it was bad for kids to be hounded for saying nigger in an instagram post but don't mind kids being hounded for saying "From the River to the Sea!" at a protest. One group thinks tracking down a twitter commenter at their job and reporting them to HR for making a joke about faggots is bad because it threatens free speech, the other group thinks that it's bad because sodomites are sinful, but are happy to track down cashiers who talk shit on Charlie Kirk. This realization is uncomfortable for the three principled libertarians, and maybe for the seven zilliion witches as well.
So in other words, the anti-woke camp is divided on the issue of identity politics or alternatively on the issue of civic nationalism.
I would say it's divided by the question of virtue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"No bad tactics only bad targets" etc.
It comes down a difference in views on virtue and sin.
One side thinks that you restrict tactics because they are bad for your enemy. The other thinks that you restrict tactics because those tactics are bad for you.
Like a jiu-jitsu coach that tells the white belts not to lean too hard on cheesy moves that will only work against other white belts, or caution big guys against moves that only work against smaller guys in workouts, because then as you progress or you want to compete you have to learn jiu jitsu twice.
A lot of people think sinning is winning, and that the only reason not to do bad things is out of some primitive feeling that Sky-Daddy is going to punish you when he goes through his giant ledger at the end of days. Others think that sin is bad because it destroys you, destroys a society.
Identitarianism is bad for blacks because victimhood politics holds people back. It is equally bad for whites. I'm sick and tired of hearing pissant "I coulda been a contenda" speeches from people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link