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 don't think the fundamental issues change, but the OP's downplaying the scope of Macklemore's statements (youtube), which are significantly more wide-ranging. Among other things, these include a celebration of the recent Columbia University encampment project, a call for a free Cuba (I assume he means free from American attempts to isolate the country?), criticism of ICE (the American immigration enforcement agency), and a declaration that he'd joined the tour partly to support Palestine.
[Edit: I'm concerned that the youtube clip above may have been edited misleadingly to imply that Macklemore had declared that he'd jointed the tour partly to support Palestine. I've removed this part from my comment.][Second Edit: After reviewing a transcript of the singer's full remarks, I'm satisfied that what I'd written was accurate, so I've reverted my comment to its original version.]
For reference, his full remarks
He also wore a costume mocking orthodox Jews, then issued a non-apology, but that was in 2014 long before he was accepted into this tour.
This speech is more wide-reaching, but I wouldn’t call it anti-Semitic, because he explicitly says he is not criticizing Jews or Israelis but the genocide itself (implicitly its undertakers, who don’t include every Jew or Israeli citizen).
"I'm explicitly not criticizing X group, just the bad ones" is... not generally a great defense, even though it may be very common.
Is it a defense seen typically on the left? ACAB, etc.
Yes. It's the argument they're making when they deny that the dogged insistence on using the term "toxic masculinity" in specific and their steadfast refusal to even entertain alternative terminology isn't an attempt to marry the concept of masculinity to being inherently toxic, but that they are only criticising the toxic aspects of masculinity.
You know, like how if you turned on the car radio and it started playing One Direction, and my response was "ugh, I hate shitty pop music" you'd naturally assume that I ordinarily love pop music and I'm only singling out specific bands in particular, and definitely not talking about the genre as a whole.
I don't think your example works? I like pop music, but I hate shitty pop music. I guess if I only ever say 'shitty' and 'pop music' together that would be strange, not sure that's the case with masculinity and the left though depends who you are referring to.
It works fine. The normal English reading of that line is that "shitty" refers to the category of "pop music", rather than creating a subclass.
No, it's ambiguous and how you'd interpret it would depend on the speaker and context. It could be said by someone who absolutely loves pop music. A true opera lover might well hate shitty opera more than anyone.
I think in the latter case you would italicize the "shitty". Your reading only works if that one word is particularly stressed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link