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 -
"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"
"Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
This is why one of the things people were saying in January 2025 is "the laws are flat". The formal systems had ALREADY been knocked down in order to cancel (and in some cases imprison) right-wing people. So the thing to do is make like the Devil and turn 'round on them.
More options
Context Copy link
A moving performance and a powerful clip. But if the laws instead lie flat as a crop-circle for one's enemies but tall and thick to protect one's friends you just have anarchotyranny.
More options
Context Copy link
Why depend on the law for your own safety's sake? Why not cut down every law in England to get after the Devil, and then if he turns round on you, just prop them back up again to hide behind? What, specifically, keeps them down?
This is a serious question, and it deserves a serious answer.
[EDIT] Let me make the point more explicitly. You are making the argument to me that if one disregards the laws, then the laws will not be there to help one when they are needed. My argument is that my opponents have disregarded the laws, and so should not be able to appeal to them. If I am right that they have disregarded the laws, but you insist I should still give them benefit of them, then I ought likewise to be able to disregard the law and still receive the benefit of them, so disregarding their appeal to the laws is the correct position to take. If your argument is that once disregarded, the laws cannot be appealed to, then my opponents' previous disregard means I should reject their appeals now, and disregarding their appeal to the laws is likewise the correct position to take.
If your argument is that they should be able to disregard the law an unlimited amount of times and yet still appeal to the law, and if I reject such appeals I will be denied the benefit of the law in my hour of need, I will point out that this is a needlessly convoluted way of declaring oneself an enemy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link