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 -
There’s an interesting staff writer at The Atlantic, Tyler Austin Harper, who among other things is a sort of rare left-wing Black critic of left-wing academia (a sort of “origin story” here). When interviewed about said piece, and touching also on his opinions about the Arday scandal and aftermath, he was posed this question about not playing into the hands of conservative critics of left-wing academia (and left-wingers more broadly):
This had me thinking about “emergencyism” more broadly. I’m kind of coming around to the idea that this particular brainworm is, at risk of “both-sideism”, a pretty fundamental and widespread issue. On the left we have the above position. On the right we have a parallel idea that Republicans and Trump specifically only might have this small window of time to ‘correct’ and even avenge mistakes of the past, so they need to be thorough and extreme in order to punish those who allegedly schemed against them, abused institutional trends or structure for years, or implemented anything vaguely woke-sounding. Potentially even moderates, maybe they vote in low quality but comparatively “harmless” candidates for office too much (especially in the primary phase, to count).
Emergencies of course are dangerous, historically speaking. While there’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem, we still note examples as classic as the Reichstag fire and associated “emergencies”, Sulla in Roman times, various military juntas; we have Japanese internment, post-9/11 AUMF abuse (especially post-Iraq), assorted Cold War surveillance abuses, etc locally. At least top of my head, IRL they are legion. Real emergencies, abused.
Yet emergencyism as depicted is actually about moral or political panics, and the lowered self-standards that can accompany them. We’re talking here about witch trials, McCarthyism, satanic panic, Iraq WMDs, super predator fears, so on.
Harper himself I think feels a bit extra jaded because in his telling, excessive and even immoral racial justice drives occurred simultaneously with him getting tenure as a university professor and also the university’s unionization drive failing (crushed in part by the same firm Amazon used to suppress their own).
Properly, emergencyism seems to be a subset of a type of blatant partisanship, which is interesting because most of the advocates likely don’t think of themselves as partisans. Potentially it’s also downstream of bad-faith politics. However I tend to think that that’s too convenient an excuse. Most people aren’t actually thinking about things in terms of game theory. And ultimately this is not about “the other side” - it’s about YOU. What are MY morals? Obviously morals are cheap until challenged, and aren’t worth much if they never survive a challenge. It takes courage for a political group to embark on a course of self-betterment even in the face of dastardly opposition. Right?
Or are we totally in a post-moral political hellscape where might makes right and morals are dead?
(And more topically - do you agree that emergencyism is a thing on the left, and do you think it’s a thing on the right two, or that’s the wrong lens to use to make sense of the Trumpist blob?)
I find this attitude among journalists and academics - i.e. roles in society that are purported to be about seeking and publicizing truth and facts (obviously trade secrets and whatnot being exceptions) - to be infuriating. If you actually have a belief that these things are important, one of the first things that you should be willing to ignore and marginalize are your own personal partisan biases and ideological commitments, because any amount of education should make it obvious that those are some of the most powerful forces that drive one's behavior into irrational and incorrect directions. As such, if some truth or fact would "feeding into" the enemies' campaign, I should embrace it and be even more gung-ho about investigating it and publicizing it. That's the only way that I can credibly claim to care about discovering and teaching truth, rather than to care about pushing forward my ideological biases while wearing academia as a skinsuit to make people believe that I'm searching for the truth.
If revealing and spreading some scientific truth would play into my enemies' hands, then I ought to play into my enemies' hands.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link