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 you misunderstood my question. With the Left, I started with one of their supposed principles (open borders) and showed that it was applied selectively, and therefore was not actually a principle. I was wondering if you had anything like that in mind for the right?
Certainly anti-abortion conservatives seem to be against abortion even when those aborted would be likely Democratic voters. (Most) conservatives who are against racial affirmative action in college admissions seem to be okay with the fact that it will give the biggest boost to Asian Americans (who strongly tend to vote Democrat).
But again my question: What principles are you thinking of?
Yeah I probably did misunderstand
My point is that you can describe both the right and the left by saying they boil down to "More good stuff for us and our allies; punishment and humiliation for our out-group." and thus it's not a very helpful model to explain either side
Assuming you're correct, I would argue that it's a helpful model to explain human behavior in general. The fact that it applies to both left and right doesn't make it less helpful; it makes it more helpful.
That being said, I'm not so sure you are correct. Hypocrisy is a universal human trait to be sure, but my impression is that it's much more salient on the Left. Perhaps I am biased as a conservative, but I would challenge you to cite three pairs of public policy positions (loosely defined) which are widely held by conservatives but based on contradictory principles, ultimately coming down to the question of who/whom. For example, "open borders" + "Palestinian Land" that I mentioned above - but on the right.
This is an interesting comment I keep forgetting to come back to. To be totally honest, I'm pretty detached from left vs right debates these days, I just like pointing out things I think aren't correct.I have a suspicion you're probably directionally correct. And if I remember later I'll try to think of some examples and report back.Nevermind I actually had some time on my hands:
Boycotts: Bud Light vs. Israel
Position A: Conservatives defended boycotts of Bud Light over its association with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. People should be free to express political objections by withholding their business.
Position B: Republican-led states have enacted laws penalizing certain companies that boycott Israel (like Texas).
Vaccine mandates vs. gender-affirming care
Position A: Conservatives argue that parents, not the government, should make vaccination decisions for their children.
Position B: Conservatives support laws prohibiting gender-affirming treatment for minors even when parents consent.
Democratic spending vs. Republican tax cuts
Position A: Republicans oppose deficit spending as they say it is fiscally irresponsible. And frequently demand spending reductions as a condition for raising the debt ceiling under Democratic admins.
Position B: Republicans pass tax/spending legislation that increases federal debt when it advances their priorities.
A thought on "Open borders" + "Palestinian land."
Those positions aren't 100% contradictory. You (royal "you") can support immigration policies while also opposing territorial annexation/ defending self-determination. Immigration, sovereignty, and property rights are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not really seeing this one. Feel free to post sources, but when the Dylan Mulvaney situation broke, I don't recall conservatives running around trumpeting some kind of sacred and general right to engage in boycotts, either as to lone consumers or government contractors.
This seems closer to the mark, if true, since conservatives seem to support the general principle that it's the parents who have the right to make important decisions about their children.
I certainly concede that when it comes to the specific activities of Congress, everyone involved is a complete and shameless hypocrite. In fact, after the post when I asked for examples it occurred to me that I should have conceded in advance on the activities of law-makers.
It depends what principles you use to support those policies. If you scream "No human being is illegal" from the rooftops, you can't really complain about Jewish people living in Hebron. Well you can, but if you do you're a hypocrite.
Anyway, thanks for posting these examples. I'm rethinking my views on liberal and conservative hypocrisy. I still feel that the issue is more salient on the Left but I admit I am prone to seeing things this way.
I'd like to thank you as this was a very interesting exercise. I actually think I agree with you overall re: "I still feel that the issue is more salient on the Left". I don't really have any conscious reason, but my gut feel agrees with you.
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