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 -
The legal definition is "an adult who has an F in the gender field of their current birth certificate" (though some red states would use different definitions in some contexts).
This is a completely defensible answer to give. There is certainly value in accepting legal definitions even if you do not fully agree with them.
Suppose someone thought that the "Space Force" was silly for some reason ("Soldiers responsible for an environment which they are not in? Why not make the NASA rover teams the Mars Force of the US military while we are at it?"). There is still value to them acknowledging that the Space Force is a part of the military (even if they would organize things differently).
Of course, there are limits. If the Fuehrer declares that your first name is henceforth "Israel", you will probably not feel obliged to use that name in your personal life. But just because there are some hills you are willing to die on does not mean that you should be willing to die on every hill!
If the law said I had to marry some transwoman and give her BJs that would feel like a hill worth dying on. Instead some laws says that some people are legally women despite having dicks that seems like much less infringing on my personal liberty.
That is required for the state of cognitive dissonance, but not for simple outrage. It is entirely coherent to regard Islam as a backwards religion which is wrong about a lot of things including women and be outraged that someone is claiming the negation of this belief.
To defend the SJ people a bit on this (or strawman them, you be the judge), I think posting this as a poster commingles two different things:
There is a relationship between the truth value of propositions and how appropriate they are to utter as speech acts, but it is most certainly not 1:1. For example, if A tells their coworker B "yesterday I masturbated for an hour thinking about you", what HR might find objectionable is not that the claim is false or even the fact that A did indeed jerk off in the privacy of their own home, but purely the speech act.
In short, "It is ok to be white, but it is not ok to loudly proclaim that it is ok to be white" seems a coherent position.
But for SJ, this pits a sacred value (race) against a profane value (speech), so the outcome is overdetermined. The thing with women and Islam is nicer because it pits two of their sacred values (women and minority religions) against each other.
Somehow it's okay to proclaim "it's okay to be x" for all values of x except for a single particular one.
Indeed, one can say much more overtly positive things about every other ethnic group ("Black is beautiful", "Black don't crack", expressing pride in being Asian), but merely saying that it's "okay" to be white is completely beyond the pale. Drawing attention to this fact is, of course, the purpose of "it's okay to be white".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I worded that a little clumsily. My meaning was actually clearer in the original draft, I think I may have to amend it for my own peace of mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link