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 -
We must conclude that the people who disagree with us, those who voted opposite to our desires yesterday, are who they are, as a product of their environment. Their rearing, their education, their associations, and if what has been inculcated in them has been biased in the opposite of my/our own values their whole life, and if now they are part of the third and perhaps fourth generation holding the same biases down from their forefathers, never having heard anything but that bias, than we understand the unsolvable conflict ripping this country apart today.
How can we reinform those in our society who are tearing down that society? Eighty years of forced contrition? And how do we overcome the captured institutions and the corrupt politicians and unelected bureaucrats to put resolute legislation into effect? Such does not seem workable. Do we let the society crumble until violent revolution is the only alternative left beside our own contrition?
I simply posit the following: The Founders of this country formed the government of The United States and the Constitution protecting it from the best western traditions of representative government from Greece on down. They did so to guarantee that we are a constitutional republic and that we would remain that way. Therefore, no tinkering with the specificities of language or colloquial interpretations thereof, can allow for a change in that intent. I.e. The U.S. Constitution innately protects its own survival. It guarantees the right to personal property, separation of powers, the freedom of religion, the rule of law. It does not allow the substitution or adoption of any other ideology - communism, socialism, etc., to supplant it.
The Oath Clause (Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..."
Attorney Generals in all 50 states whether corrupt or not, must be made to enforce this law. This law removes the likes of Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar, El Sayed and any others of their ilk from office and should have prevented all DSA candidates from even running. Enforcing this law is the only way we can preserve this country as intended. Enforcing it, may make you mad at me - make you hate my guts - but it does not force you to change your opinions.
You posted this in two places. If you hadn't already gotten multiple responses in both places, I'd delete one. This post is borderline in itself; we try to give lots of leeway to people bringing their best and most interesting/borderline-crazy ideas, but I am already frowning at all the posts that amount to "We lost/We are in trouble/this is a disaster for us" and your entire post amounts to an appeal to a consensus that does not exist here. Since you are also a newly-rolled account, almost certainly a sockpuppet, and very likely a ban evader, consider yourself on notice and on our radar.
Your right that this is my first post. I will read through all the replies. Didn't mean anything by posting it in two places, but that was a suggestion from someone else.
You say that you know what the consensus here is. If you meant in the replies, that will be ascertained. If not...?
And doesn't this from you: "almost certainly a sockpuppet, and very likely a ban evader, consider yourself on notice and on our radar" constitute name-calling and bullying?
I thought honestly that I had been judicious. I'll rethink.
Of the two places that I posted, which do you think I should take down? Much appreciated.
You misunderstand what we mean by consensus-building; you don't get to express disdain for your outgroup as long as you're in the majority, and you are not allowed to recruit for a cause or assume that "everyone" is on your side. It is probably true that the majority of people here are right-leaning and unhappy with the electoral results. That doesn't matter. This isn't a right-leaning forum for you to rally support against the electoral results.
No, it constitutes an observation and a warning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link