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 -
Technically this is of course possible. For instance Hamas won 44% in 2006 elections in Gaza, the coalition around Hezbollah won 40% in 2022 Lebanon elections.
Of course this only shows the fragility of the our democracy™ sometimes also known as liberal democracy. It is always appeal to majority but with the caveats of human rights. Majority builds legitimacy - e.g. here they will say 55% are not AfD. While human rights are there as a grounding for moral argument for unpopular policies. So trans and naturalization of immigrants are human rights, and thus part of our democracy™. If unelected EU bureaucrats rule by fiat, it is under the veneer of human rights or sometimes science etc. - even if they literally subvert democratic norms, try to ban opposition parties etc. It is democratic from where they stand in their worldview.
In the end I think this liberal consensus is nonsense from their own standpoint, especially if they lose both legs. If they lose majority, they lose legitimacy. However the rights discourse is also based on the very same pilar. Slogan housing is human right or even asylum is human right depends on enough people shouting and more importantly enforcing it. There is no objective grounding, it is not as if such a right was found on an asteroid floating around Jupiter or whatnot. As soon as people start mocking it and refuse to uphold it, it stops being a right. In fact the same erosion happened to article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human rights (right to privacy of correspondence) and now every state and their underling browses through your correspondence for fun. So why not article 14 about asylum - just give the same caveat that asylum is technically there, but it only covers airplane ticket to Rwanda or French Guayana or whatnot.
In a reverse, ban on mocking The Prophet is nowhere near universal human right, but it practically became one by virtue of threat of violence if broken despite it never being marked as such. In a very same secular logic, human right is just a strongly worded law or custom with accompanied attempts to convince or shame and blame or even threaten people into accepting it.
A lot of platitudes about the ideals of democracy completely gloss over the "two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner" part. If your electorate is sufficiently homogeneous (all sheep, or even all wolves) this isn't an issue, but in practice a heterogeneous democracy really depends on a shared sense of liberal civic values: voters need to accept that nobody gets blasphemy laws, or they'll keep voting for them. Sure, you can set higher thresholds for changing your constitutions, but that only leans on a balance of voters and isn't really stable when increasing fractions of your voters don't like it. Demographics there do matter, especially relative to cosmopolitanism.
And worse, there isn't even broad agreement on what "a shared sense of liberal civic values" should be.
There always were blasphemy laws in place, in fact we probably live in an era of highest moral panic of hate speech, where saying magic words such as f-word or n-word in recent case can get you to jail. Not to even talk about bans on social media platforms, getting fired from work etc. It is arguably stronger than being told you are commie during Cold War or actually blaspheming against God before then.
Yes. I recently argued that Culture War is in fact a religious war. There is no sense of liberal civic values, because there is huge disagreement about values, which is domain of axiology and theology. And so we live through
culture warraging religious conflict of highly incompatible religions and ideologies.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link