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 mean, is he campaigning on "Israel should not exist"? You can play the game where you replace the outgroup's policy position with what you think they actually believe/what you think will be an inevitable consequence if they get their way/what you think gets listeners to take the threat of it as seriously as you do, but then the correct comparison is not to the mere motte of the reference position ("transing children under any circumstances") but the result of playing exactly the same game with it. Many leftists have in fact already done that very thing, down to the exact substitution you used!
So, how do you figure the number of Americans who are categorically against Israel existing compares to the number of Americans who are categorically against trans children existing (in the classic culture-warry "denying our right to exist" sense)?
There was essentially no campaigning at all. Kamala Harris chose other issues to use against Trump.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. What questions would you ask in a poll to determine if there was genuine, widespread, and long-lasting anti Israel sentiment in the United States to the same extent that there is genuine, widespread, and long-lasting sentiment in the United States against transing of children?
Here's a excerpt from a post from a couple weeks back here:
I don't know if this is true, and if it is, I don't know the exact questions that were asked. But it seems to me that if it's true, it's almost certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "against trans children existing." Does it mean that no child would be allowed to get sex change surgery/sex-change hormones etc?
You are the one who called the parent poster's comparison "misleading", after he posted a video that drew conclusions about support for El Sayed based on polling for "reduce or eliminate military aid to Israel" and "favorability of AIPAC", and suggested that the more appropriate criterion (to determine who would be willing to vote for him) is "categorically against Israel existing". I don't know the post from "a couple of weeks ago" you are referencing, and maybe in your eyes all the anti-Israel opinions you have seen form one homogeneous blob, but I could only evaluate your post in the context of the one you were directly responding to.
El Sayed seems to be (implicitly or explicitly) campaigning on reducing support for Israel. Per the video, this is a popular position. As I understood you, you were trying to argue that (1) stopping Israel from existing is on the other hand not a popular position and (2) this implies a majority will not vote for him. But for this reasoning to work, you need a significant number of potential voters to believe that supporting him actually amounts to "against Israel existing". You have not proven this, and seemingly not seen the need to prove this. This is highly reminiscent of the leftist strategy to equivocate "remove subsidies for gender transition"/"reduce positive media depictions of transsexualism" with "deny trans people's right to exist".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link