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'm saying that, if we go strictly by what liberalism allows, there's no solution to those "problems" either.
The exact same line of argument you raised could be raised against those groups and their interminable complaints.
But, imo, the sort of utter obtuseness about even the basic fact - let alone the solution - that OP is decrying is imo not that common in those cases when discussing with progressive liberals . They face the problems and can't seem to stop talking about them, even if many think solutions have to be slower (e.g. via "education", that great liberal panacea) since liberalism does place constraints.
So why does this happen for some groups but not others? Well, they simply don't care about certain groups. Clinton's brazen myopia was just an extreme example to illustrate the phenomenon: one side simply doesn't care and others...well, they apparently don't have Clinton's in-group loyalty.
tl;dr: Liberalism or limited solutions doesn't mean you can't care or discuss this. Not caring means you can't.
I agree, in the sense it would be just as immoral for those groups to employ various coercive measures to get others to form relationships with them.
Sure, I don't disagree that liberals are often more sensitive to issues impacting historically marginalized groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link