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 think I generally understood you here but still find much of it impenetrable.
Well, let me try again.
Once upon a time there were suburbs. And the people there didn't see the point of racism, mainly because they had moved away (or could move away) from the thing racism was a proxy for: controlling the urban poor. So they got rid of it.
Their children proceeded to form their entire civic identity around being "the people that banned racism" (they did no such thing, of course- that was all their parents, and these people who think they did it were completely unaware of the calculus behind it. As such, those born in the '50s and '60s are both the most zealous about this and are currently at the apex of their political power).
Those people also banned the construction of new suburbs.
Now their children are in cities (mainly because new suburb construction was banned) and have rediscovered that the protections against the urban poor were necessary.
But they can't get those protections. This is mostly because the people who they need protection from happen to be black, and so desiring that protection is "racist", which violates a religious tenet. (Most of the "X-ist" claims are religious tenets in the same way and for the same reasons.)
And they're too poor to combat this religion. If they were rich enough not to get demoted to urban poor for speaking against that religion [or "blasphemy" for short], they could just leave the city, solving the problem. So the only people invested are inherently going to be ideologues, and if they're at all competent the religion stochastically generates a holy warrior to kill that person.
(Considering those warriors tend to get caught, and the penalty for murder is still death, there's no functional difference between murdering political opponents on religious grounds and your standard run-of-the-mill suicide bombing.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link