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 -
Can we just deport him? And no I am not talking about a Somalian, but Alexander Ovechkin. He just appeared in a Russian political ad. When asked why he did that he replied, “I’m Russian, I support my country”. But here’s the thing the west and to a lesser extent the US is at war with Russia. Undeclared and without ground troops, but we are contributing financing, seized Russian assets, and have and probably still provide intelligence to the Ukrainian side. I think supporting a foreign government at war with America is perfectly fine grounds to deport someone.
The counter argument and I think a reasonable opinion for letting him stay is that cultural exchange makes peace easier. So there are solid grounds for letting him stay. I probably take the opinion that letting him play hockey in the US is better for US foreign policy than deportation.
From a cultural war perspective I would love Trump to deport him and make the lefties who “support Ukraine” make arguments for why Ovechkin in ICE shackles is a bad thing. Meh “free speech”. I did the AI thing and it sounds like he doesn’t have US citizenship but if he did he would make a perfect test case for denaturalization. Declaring yourself to have loyalties to a foreign government at war with the US seems absolutely perfect for denaturalization.
Also, nice culture war on Trump is a Russian agent by deporting a Russian. And it fits with the meme “we need them for the sports ball team”.
He’s just a perfect test case for deportation since his politics are against the US left instead of their Hamas adjacent friends who a broad swath of the left supports.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it assumes progressives are obligated to acknowledge every inconvenient truth and fairly integrate it into a coherent system of beliefs about Trump or conservatives in general. In reality, the opposite is true: they pick a preferred narrative, and then cherrypick facts to support it, while ignoring the facts that don't.
So if Trump did deport a Putin-supporter, then the left would not begrudgingly acknowledge that Trump isn't as much of a Putin booster as they claimed he was. They'll first try to spin it in a different way to make Trump look bad (“Trump doesn't just hate brown people, he hates free speech too!”, “Trump deports star athlete over political speech!” or as a last resort “experts say Ovechkin deportation designed to distract from Trump's own Putin connections”) and if they feel like they can't spin the event to fit their narrative convincingly, they'll just bury the story, and it won't be mentioned at all the next time Trump deports a Mexican felon.
This does sound like most progressives to me. It also sounds like most everyone else to me. Do you think progressives are unique in this?
I might be persuaded that elite progressives are more that way than elite conservatives but I'm not sure.
Sure, most people operate this way, with the possible exception of the world's most principled rationalists (read: annoying nerds that have no influence on public debate whatsoever). But saying only that suggests a false balance between the two sides of the political spectrum.
The reality is that progressives control public debate. They control the overwhelming majority of institutions, from news organizations, to multinational corporations, to NGOs, to academia, to the judicial system (up to the Supreme Court perhaps), to websites like Wikipedia and reddit. They gatekeep what news makes it to the front page and stays there to be talked about by normies. They form an implicit coalition to filter out facts that are inconvenient to the progressives, but not to conservatives.
In practical terms that means conservative politicians like Trump have very little incentive to harm people that oppose the goals of the progressive coalition (as Ovechkin seems to do by supporting Russia over Ukraine), even when those actions would theoretically reflect well on Trump, because the progressive coalition will ensure Trump never receives any credit for it.
Yes, thanks, that's the sort of nuance I was hoping someone would delineate.
A lot of the time when I push back here it's not because I disagree but because I want to see the finer structures of someone's thought, to compare notes.
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