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 studied history in secondary school and had an entire module about the Troubles. My teacher was himself a Northern Irish Protestant, and he noted to us the curious fact that, even though Unionists consider themselves British and want Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK, most of them tend to have a visceral hatred of English people. Admittedly, Northern Irish Protestants are disproportionately of Scottish descent, and even Scots who are opposed to Scottish independence tend not to be too keen on English people.
I don't necessarily see any conflict between "there are too many of the wrong sort of immigrant in this country and I'm willing to fight against the British military in order to get that point across, but I still think Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK." No different, really, from American militiamen who are willing to fight against the federal government (because they think it's been usurped from within) but nonetheless consider themselves fiercely patriotic Americans.
Didn't loyalist in 1776 America mean opposite of Patriot?
No idea, but in Northern Ireland it means loyal to the crown.
"Loyalist" in practice means "sympathetic to political violence on the Protestant side of the Troubles". Northern Irish Protestants who make loyalty to the UK central to their political identity but don't support political violence are called "Unionists".
I endorse this definition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The current bearer of the Crown is seemingly content with population replacement and wishes to be ready to war with Russia. When you disagree on the very main thing the government does, can you be loyal to it? It's not like a child wants her mom to give her more candy. So you want other government, just in same land borders, and the old goverment - Mussollini.jpg
Orwell addressed this dilemma/paradox in "The Lion and the Unicorn". How can you be patriotic to the idea of something you're intending to completely alter from the ground up? The answer seems to be "it's tricky, but it can be done". Russians really did seem able to transplant/displace their patriotic fervour from Czarist Russia to the Soviet Union with minimal difficulty.
Love of one's country is just one of many kinds of love, all of which have to deal with this contradiction to a greater or lesser extent. Unlike what that one movie from the 70s would have us believe, love does not mean never having to say you're sorry. Saying you're sorry and promising to do better is a big part of love. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you can never criticise them or request that they change their behaviour. Sometimes this is "tough love" (i.e. because you love them, you hate to see them behaving in a self-destructive fashion), but sometimes it's not.
How can you love a football team consisting of a rotating selection of foreigners and guys born on the other side of your country? And sold to the highest bidder, who also happens to be foreign a lot of the time, if not a literal multinational conglomerate?
But people do. (shrug)
A few weeks ago, Scott had a post where he described, as a child, how he thought food critics did their jobs. He was already familiar with the concept of double-blinding in medicine, and assumed that being a food critic was similar, with a restaurant's dishes being delivered to the critic's house in unmarked packages, perhaps literally spoon-fed to the blindfolded critic to ensure that he won't be biased by things like the restaurant's "ambiance", interior design or how the food is presented (as opposed to its taste, texture etc.). When he found out how food critics actually do their jobs, he was disgusted.
I had a bit of a shock of recognition, because when I was a child, I assumed that the footballers playing for Manchester United had to be from that city, or at the very least had to have lived within its borders for a significant period of time, so that the players are in some way representative of the sporting talent of that city. Otherwise, in what sense is it meaningful to say "we" beat Arsenal last night?
But no: it turns out the players are just the best people that team could afford, with absolutely no familial connection to the city of any kind. Even in the Olympics, my understanding is that you only have to be a citizen to represent "your" country.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I just don't think that's true. I am an Ulster Scots Northern Irishman and we have many English relatives. Half my extended family moved to England and married English people. Maybe a very mild dislike of Southern posh English people but we get on very well with Northerners.
I've never even met a Protestant Ulsterman who mentioned hating the English. Certainly not a visceral hatred.
The real (Norn) Irony here is that many Northern Irish Catholics call my people immigrants/colonizers/invaders and condemn us for the violent actions of say Lenny Murphy and the like (or Britain in general) while leaning left and thus being more lenient towards the more recent Sudanese immigrant. While my people who are in fact themselves literal violent invaders/colonizers are harsher to the Sudanese, but don't see the same logic also applies to us. If this Sudanese murderer means we should treat Sudanese people differently then Lenny Murphy and the like indicate that Catholics are in fact correct to want us gone/out of power as well. You either have collective guilt/treatment or you don't. Nothing here is driven by logic or rationality.
It's an Ulster-Scots kettle calling the Sudanese pot black (so to speak). While likewise the Catholics are more tolerant of this chap and similar immigrants than of my type and similar immigrants. It's topsy-turvy, all built around tribal lines.
Still this chap is likely to get knifed in prison or have boiling sugar water thrown over him by a wee fella from Antrim sooner or later.
I'll take your word for it. I only know a handful of people from up north, and it wouldn't surprise me if my secondary school teacher's perspective was unrepresentative or inaccurate. He was a bit of an oddball.
Nice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link