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 -
Now this is the kind of energy holocaust deniers need to cultivate. Proactive denial.
I've long felt that the reason progressives and similarly minded don't do well here is that the ruleset is kind of stacked against them. They argue differently. It's a lot more emotional and haughty. It challenges you on a different level. It's more personal. And, frankly, it's also more earnest and fun. They're more viscerally and honestly channeling their emotions through text.
But the flipside of that is well... everyone else can also do that. So whilst this might not be the venue for that kind of clash, I'd also ask, do you really want it to be? I have had faith in some progressives I've argued with. Their wit and tenacity was impressive, if nothing else. But are you one of them? If this is all you can muster before crashing out then I don't fancy your chances.
You're getting a fair amount of sympathy because you're black. I don't understand why. Your post was probably the worst thing one can write and I find everyone coddling you to be absurd to a point where I barely have the heart to engage with it.
If white people can muster the strength to walk past all the white victims of black crime without just calling every black person the n-word all the time, I think you should be able to do something comparable when one of the whites finally has enough and allows themselves to verbally wonder in a scarcely populated recess of the internet whether this whole civil rights thing was worth it.
Comically, your reply was probably the least dignified and most validating argument in favor of such skepticism possible. You offer no sympathy, no understanding, just go straight into the most selfish and aggressively verbalized ingroup/outgroup pathology possible. Leaving no room for interpretation other than that there will be no sympathy for the white devil. He shall continue to give life and limb to the continuous project of racial reconciliation in America to the benefit of your ingroup pathology.
I can't imagine a position less deserving of sympathy than yours. Why you are receiving any is, again, absurd.
What's with this hard-on all you reactionaries have for collective punishment? Some black people commit crimes targeting white people, so now every black person is guilty and deserves to be greeted with the most inflammatory word you could throw at them?
And oh, what a magnanimous sacrifice it is, apparently, to simply not racially abuse strangers who have no connection to the events you're citing. You're absorbing crime statistics, almost certainly wholly unrelated to you personally, and Chi_Wara is sitting in a forum reading a direct argument for his own ethnic subjugation. These are being presented as equivalent burdens requiring equivalent restraint. They are not.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair though, if someone was talking about hurting you, then is there much of a meaningful difference if they say it with an emotional passion vs a deadpan matter of fact tone? Either way their intent and meaning is the same, they want to hurt you!
"I want to kill people like you" vs "I want to fucking kill people like you" only really differs in that maybe the emotional passion behind the second makes it more believable. But if we believe both to be equally honest, then what difference is left in actual meaning? Even if we dress it up as "I believe it is beneficial to me and my group if we killed people like you" it's basically the same.
If we have an issue with the swear one but not the other two then it comes off more as prudishness about swearing or "conduct" rather than anything else.
Like look at the mod response
So if they said "I politically believe that people like me are benefited from seeing people with views like you as demonic monsters and that killing you would be a net positive to my group's quality of life" is that really gonna be ok?
Yes, those are the rules. Anyone is free to express their desire to commit torture, rape, and genocide as long as they are polite about it. That may seem ridiculous, but it has worked out for us so far, while other comparable fora have died from lack of engagement or collapsed into (greater) ideological conformity.
It's an interesting sort of prudishness to find support for something like the Holocaust as acceptable, every slur imaginable is allowed, but a little bit of swearing could be beyond the pale if it's found to be "rude".
Is "I am politically working towards the goal that you and your entire people are subhumans who will be subjected to cruel torture and genocide" a polite statement? If so, how about "I'm gonna beat your mother, cause fuck you". Both are hypothetical goals of enacting violence on the other speaker.
I think most people in general society would agree that genocide and murder is worse than just beating someone up and calling them a few swears while doing it, but hey maybe the normies just don't understand what being polite actually means.
As if this place isn't mostly like 7-8 people who are that active
Yeah, it's already severely conformist with how aggressive people are (refer back to how it's circlejerked so hard that calls for violence against someone are seen as more polite than a little swearing) but I'll admit I've seen worse among some of the online tankie groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It has long been Noticed as a trope that: in their responses to hate facts, wrongthink, malinformation—blacks tend to reinforce the bases behind such hate facts, wrongthink, malinformation via the level of impulsivity and (lack of) erudition in their responses. And yet, still get coddled with the Gordon Ramsay “oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous” treatment.
@The_Nybbler is actually slinging some hopium in positing that OP is a troll, although it’s possible he’s right. Poe’s Law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link