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 -
... Do you seriously not see the difference between a measure that restricts the volition of others, versus a measure that doesn't?
Anyways, you're still missing the point. Just address the OPs thesis that we should be spending more effort holding people accountable for acts of bigotry and less effort for holding people accountable for feelings of bigotry. Do you disagree with that premise? I'm not going to be pulled into the orthogonal argument you clearly want to have until you at least admit that it is orthogonal. Good faith debate is one person claims "A" and the other person claims "Not A." You are claiming B. Arguing against A will not establish B. Arguing for B will not defeat A.
It isn't "restricting the volition of others" in the sense meant by libertarians, to fail to allow you to use someone else's property, and to use force when you attempt to do so anyway.
I think that like a lot of advice, some people need it more and some people need it less. People on social media (or regular media) probably need to care about feelings of bigotry less. People here probably need to care about it more. Hurting someone's feelings is actually important. Yes, sometimes people's feelings get hurt too easily, but I deny that having someone avoid you because of your race is such a case.
Okay I can tell we're getting into bravery debate territory here (not your fault, I think even OP was aware of the doodoo they were stepping in.) Trying to phrase this neutrally though... If you were the racism tsar (but otherwise kept your values) and could magically alter all government-sponsored antiracism messaging within the united states to one of the following options, which would you choose?
I think OPs argument is in line with point two, assuming limited anti-bigltry resources.
I don't know how libertarians use it. I'm using it in the sense that I would be a lot more offended by someone refusing to let me use a waterfountain than refusing to park their car near me. I would still be sad about the car thing, but I would rather more resources be spent fighting the waterfountain thing.
Hurting people feelings isn't not important, but I think OPs point (which I agree with), is that we are weighing the prevention of hurt feeling too highly relative to other antiracist goals.
By definition I'd be aiming the messaging at the public, not the people here, and the public needs different advice than the people here. Furthermore, I pointed out that avoiding black people because of crime might be necessary and racist at the same time and I wouldn't message people to avoid necessary things. It also raises the question of what counts as "bigoted acts", since most people would think that avoiding a group of people based on race is a bigoted act.
So my answer is "probably the first option, but it's completely irrelevant".
There's a famous joke I could invoke here, but I'll just say that "we" is made of different groups that need different advice. I'm sure there are people on tumblir who are weighing hurt feelings too highly. I don't think people on themotte are weighing them anywhere near that much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link