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 realize this isn’t a top quality post, so I accept the judgement of the mods, but a mistrial has been declared in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Shes the woman in Massachusetts who admitted to killing her kids, but claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The jury deliberated for seven days. Apparently, it came down to one male juror holding out against the other (nine female, two male) jurors. The belief is that he wanted to vote guilty. The jury reported to the judge that the holdout refused to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt, and the defense tried to have him removed. The judge refused. This morning, the judge declared a mistrial but gave defense one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Predictably, the online discourse is off the walls. X lifts the holdout up as a hero, while Reddit believes he (we know it’s a male because the defense said so) is an MRA/red piller and needs to have his phone searched.
Personally, I think she’s guilty of premeditated, cold blooded murder. That said, I get the postpartum argument, but am horrified by the defense of her and holding her up as some kind of hero.
The short of it is that a sizeable portion of the population can't formulate a coherent idea of 'law' or anything similar that isn't just a system existing to personally benefit them. Having such people make decisions is untenable. And the weight of living under that system, knowing what it's made up of, makes everything more precarious.
Those folks are in one camp. Another camp tries to reason themselves away from this reality by pretending that what's going on isn't that, but some other factor: 'The law is actually complex, you see. 'Mental health is a serious issue!' None of these are real, none of these are relevant. It's just cope because there is no worldview that can both accurately fit in the Lindsay Clancy fans and not be incredibly sexist at the same time.
The feminist mantra of 'What's best for mom is what's best for baby' when talking about abortion isn't some one-off, it's a declaration of what reality is to them and how you're supposed to see it. The women supporting this aren't insane themselves, they just found a resonator in Lindsay who they can dump all their emotions into. And that's the thing, it's emotions they have. If they had at any point decided to kill their own babies, they believe they should not be punished for it. Their emotions aren't just valid, they're reality. And that's the system you live under today.
There is no delicate offramp here for the civil and socialized, who would sooner die than blemish their own ego by earnestly engaging in a low brow culture war, so they just close their eyes and keep driving straight, with no concern to where that leads. Which is how we got to where we are now.
Hence the ultimate problem with the concept of the "middle class".
If they refuse the duty to lead, perhaps because they're too busy making money (or because they just aren't fit to lead in the "eww, that's icky" way), then the status and productivity that makes them middle class will eventually be redistributed away from them. Fools and their money, etc.
Funny, I was kind of having this same argument with another guy yesterday.
Failure, intentional [as "I don't want to get dirty"] or unintentional, to understand why the bad human thinks he is justified won't bring you towards your goal at all. (It's also the problem when men complain about [progressive] morals without taking the time to first understand women, for that matter; that's precisely why all the reactionary criticisms fall flat.)
More options
Context Copy link
I think I lay a lot of that mindset on the overemphasis on feelings, impulses, and desires. They certainly have a place, but it’s almost impossible to be a happy well adjusted person who lives an active social life and have feelings as the main focus on how a person lives. Feelings are not facts, they never were and cannot function as the driver of decisions. If you try, you’ll not only be living irrationally, but you’ll make yourself miserable in the process.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you volunteer to be excluded from decision making, or are you imagining this purely with yourself and others like you as those in charge and not someone like Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, or the other leaders of actual real world examples of powerful authoritarian societies?
I can't speak for the grandparent, but there are political arrangements in between 21st-century egalitarian democracies and 21st-century totalitarian states. I don't know how many of them suit modern America very well, but they certainly exist.
I can't think of many countries I'd like living in besides the US, and pretty much all of those are western style democracies with universal suffrage. If they "certainly exist", where are they and why should I want to copy their model if they suck?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm imagining that free white men of good character don't need to be weighed down by the obvious excesses of the luxurious societies they build. Part of maintaining that luxury for everyone is recognizing that it's just that, a luxury.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link