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 -
It seems to me that this is a reasonable approximation of your thesis statement for this post; correct me if I'm wrong.
Some other examples I think might add meaningfully to the concept-space you're exploring here: DignifAI was a meme where people used AI image generation to take bikini/lingerie/nude images of various e-girls, and digitally re-cloth them in modest garb. This greatly offended the e-girls and feminists generally, for reasons that they struggled to explain. Likewise, there was a short fad of using AI to take mixed-race family photos and convert them to same-race family photos, presented as "what could have been"; there was discussion of both here some time ago.
The through-line here are novel attacks that turn one's own ideological commitments against themselves, exposing weak points and contradictions.
The flip-side is, rhetoric is not reality, and reality cannot be held off indefinitely by frame games.
You identify "who won the 2020 election?" as an effective gambit, and so it is. So here's one back at you:
"Republicans should adopt the strategies used by Democrats in 2020 in every election going forward." Agree or disagree? I think we both can see that this is far less effective rhetorically than "who won the 2020 election". I would happily accept the lesser rhetorical effectiveness in exchange for the actual benefit of Republicans acting this way in the real world. Does that seem like a good trade to you?
Funnily enough, this post originated as something I wrote shortly after the DignifAI brouhaha. It was a Substack post comparing DignifAI, "it's okay to be white" and "Islam is right about women". I couldn't figure out how to wrap it up so it stayed in my drafts for well over a year. When I saw the Clayton clip I had the idea to compare it to "what is a woman?", then realised I could use a few hundred words of copy from the unpublished post.
I'm going to plead "Fearful Symmetry".
I vaguely remember the essay, but after a quick scan find I don't understand the reference. could you explain?
More generally, which of the three types of answers you enumerated would you say this falls under?
[edit] - to elaborate on my interest here a bit, I went to some effort to defend Meshkhout here in his discussion of the 2020 election fraud theories, despite strongly disagreeing with his general takeaways. I defended him because, near as I could see, he was explicitly attacking falsehoods other commenters here were repeating, and I think that's a good thing. I strongly disagree with his takeaway because I think he focused his attention very carefully and very intentionally on arguments he could prove were false, in an attempt to dismiss a general argument that is in fact pretty damning.
The Democrats actually, in fact, did a bunch of bad shit to win the 2020 election, and suffered zero consequences for doing so. As a starter, they used Federal security and legal agencies to harm the trump campaign and protect the Biden campaign. I do not believe that an election in which the FBI and Justice Department is breaking multiple laws to help one side and harm the other is a legitimate election. To the extent that you or Meshkhout do not believe that this sort of behavior is worth talking about, I am willing to concede my error: these tactics are legitimate, and therefore my side should exploit them freely for our own advantage, and I'm confident that you and Meshkhout will obviously agree.
...To loop this back around, the rhetorical strategy you are talking about is both real and effective. But at the end of the day, what you're seeing isn't some tool that helps clear the fog of partisanship; it's just another symptom of the core nature of culture war. You're seeing how the capacity to live together decays, as the necessarily-simple heuristics we rely on to keep the peace break down under the unbearable strain of incoherent values.
As people say, "should" implies "can." It does no good to establish the "legitimacy" of both sides exploiting a tactic that only one side can actually use. Because "FBI and Justice Department breaking multiple laws to help one side and harm the other" is something that only works in one direction.
More options
Context Copy link
Scott was writing in 2015, when the idea of "cancelling" people via social media was a fairly new idea. While it had been popularised by progressives, Scott noted that conservatives were starting to catch up to the idea and deploying many of the same tactics. Scott optimistically hoped that eventually people would realise how pointless and self-defeating this was and agree to a mutual laying down of arms.
So, yes. If the tactics employed by the Dems in 2020 were legitimate for them to use, they're legitimate for the Republicans to use in every subsequent election. But my God, I wish both sides would agree to a clean fight and put the genie back in the bottle.
They'll happily agree to a clean fight, they just won't engage in it, and they'll laugh at you while cheating unmercifully -- ask Spencer Pratt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm neither one of them, but I'll heartily agree: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If dirty pool makes a legitimate tactic for one side, it absolutely follows that it is for the other. I may not like it when either side does it, but I don't think it illegitimizes an election either way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link