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 -
Surfacing a maybe slightly more obscure reaction to the Lesbian Bar SNAFU discussed below, a comment from MetaFilter (bolding mine):
This commenter nailed one of the main points of disagreement I have with the broader left, i.e., the whole "being charitable" thing, the rejection of the arguments-as-soldiers doctrine. And of course it's good to see a comment like this being heavily upvoted in a de facto progressive space that is still worried about COVID. I'd love to ask that commenter, as well as anyone who upvoted this comment: who has been cultivating the unproductive environment you are describing?
From where I stand, almost every leftist space inevitably ends up doing witch hunts, cancelling people for benign shit (recently DHH and Ed Sheeran, and I can imagine a gorillion other examples), essentially harming their own in the name of the greater good. There's a danger that is, to me, more urgent than COVID: a large portion of people in the West have a culture that incentivizes and perpetuates the same pattern, the outcome of which will inevitably be that no one finds it worthwhile to try to create anything.
This culture is what makes people so eager to ban cops from the bar but not the Soe Noire person, who effectively nuked whatever slim chance Matellian had of keeping the business running, all because Noire paints himself as a victim. Well, cops are ontologically evil, while Noire has a lot of intersectional points in his bag so...
Care for another MetaFilter comment?
I'm not posting this comment to sneer, I just want to talk to the person who posted it. Imagine I'm talking to them, maybe on my knees, pleading.
Like, okay, the problems you described can be fairly debated. Maybe I agree with some and disagree with others, but aren't you at least a little bit curious about the batshit-insane, hostile environment that produced a situation IN YOUR OWN CAMP where NOBODY won? The owners of the bar didn't win - duh. The scarce clientele they had didn't win. I lost brain cells while reading this article, so I guess I didn't win either. People of your tribe showed how they solve problems (and I repeat, this problem appears within ALL leftist spaces; it doesn't just manifest as cancelling): they sat down for three hours and failed to hash out a simple disagreement that maybe should've been an email - or, ideally, there shouldn't have been a disagreement in the first place, because adults understand that a bar has to make money. As for all the more important problems you profess to care about, did the insanity described in the article help you solve them, or are you worse off? And are they really not behaving like "rabid Maoists"?
I don't know, folks. Maybe another one?
Of course, it's "wrecker shit"! How could I have thought that this pattern exists? It's "wrecker shit".
One person should be able to have a disagreement with another, but in leftist spaces we see, time after time, people taking disagreements personally and painting themselves as victims to get others on their side, like Soe Noire does. You did a racism is five years old. Gamergate, whose main character was a professional victim, is more than ten. Is this all "wrecker shit"? It's not - I swear, it's not. It's the same thing, it's the same cultural thing, it's the same thing as with the lesbian bar. How long can we pretend not to notice that good faith is abandoned as soon as it becomes inconvenient?
If you can't describe a problem accurately, you can't solve it. At this point, I just have to conclude that maybe they don't want to solve it.
I am a bit more sympathetic to the idea of 'wreckerism' as a distinct phenomenon. As I've seen it used thus far, it tends to refer to those personalities who cannot surrender their own ideological purity for the benefit of the group's overall mission. It has existed since at least the 1970s, if not since the dawn of time. Spend enough time in group spaces of any persuasion and this dynamic is obvious. There will always be people who join for more self-serving reasons than mission-serving reasons, and vice versa. It's very hard to screen for this.
Now, I do think hyper-leftist spaces have a unique challenge in that their ideas attract more of these personalities in part because of the general ressentiment of their politics and in part because leftists tend to be averse to commonsense social policing for fear of being 'exclusionary.' In this sense, 'wreckerism' is a sort of absurd escalation of leftist epistemology and ethics. However, there are plenty of leftists and leftish people (I've met them and perhaps you could consider me one) who are able to hold the fundamental tenets of the worldview without devolving into endless internecine conflict. There are discussions to be had about what distinguishes these types of people. I just don't think it's accurate to call it a problem of the entire camp. This is a distinct, vocal faction that everyone happens to kowtow to at the first sign of instigation. It's this kowtowing that needs to stop.
I also can't help but reiterate that they stopped enforcing their cover fee, which is the idiocy that kicked off this whole chain of events.
"Wrecking" is when someone sabotages the Soviet Union. At first they thought they would be a very productive utopia. By implementing socialism it would automatically transform into prosperity and advancement in every way. Then that didn't happen. By the 1930s it was clear they were getting stuck somehow. So Stalin determined there must be "wreckers" purposefully harming society and particularly sabotaging industry. Such people were identified, tortured into confessing and executed. Then their torturers were tortured and executed. Then the torturer-torturers were tortured and executed. And so on. One indeed wonders why this enlightened society failed to progress into a sci-fi eutopia.
Anyways it's commie talk for "saboteur". As invented or at least popularized by Stalin himself.
Is this factual?
Yes, it's factual. It's maddening that people don't know this sort of thing, given our society's purported obsession with searching for any visible sign, marker or dogwhistle of genocidal totalitarianism, provided it's not visible signs, markers or dogwhistles of the genocidal totalitarianism that's considered super-cool and popular with large portions of the tribe most obsessed with the search.
More options
Context Copy link
I thought that literally happened in the 1930s with the NKVD iteratively denouncing and torturing their own members and leadership.
A cursory look at Google confirms this. Not every last torturer was himself later tortured. But there were waves of denouncements. Multiple cycles of this. I know it sounds like absurd parody, but it appears to have happened.
More options
Context Copy link
Wikipedia indicates (1 2 3) as follows:
1936: Kamenev and Zinoviev are interrogated by Yagoda's NKVD and executed
1938: Yagoda is interrogated by Yezhov's NKVD and executed
1940: Yezhov is interrogated by Beria's NKVD and executed
1953: Beria is executed
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