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 -
State legitimacy should be looked at more concretely.
Firstly, there's the internal element. The essence of Japan can be the Yamato warrior, One Hundred Million With One Spirit - or it can be something else, isolation and moralism. Democratic moralism is just one kind of ideal that upholds state legitimacy. It could also be revolutionary Maoism or Rome's destiny to rule the world or the divine right of a dynasty to rule many peoples. It could be about being sorry for racism against black people, that could be the essence of a state. These ideas aren't just abstract, they guide how the nation and state sees itself and how the state behaves on the ground. What does the army do, who makes up the elite class, how is the government run, who is taxed and who gets sinecures? These are all contested (someone gains and someone loses) and need legitimacy/ideology behind them to explain and justify. The whole purpose of legitimacy is to legitimize some concrete action.
And there's the external element, the delegitimizing factor. The Iranian regime is illegitimate because they impoverish their own people to make missiles and fund terrorism. (When the Arabs do that, they're called proxies rather than terrorists until they go rogue). All non-democracies are illegitimate to a certain extent and even some of the democracies can be 'backsliding.' It's a way of viewing the world that has material results in that they end up getting attacked, usually by the US. The West is illegitimate because they're satanic degenerates who don't know the difference between men and women and so opposing them is justified despite the costs... The true reason might be something else but delegitimizing helps justify some kind of action.
I think it's always better to ground discussions like this in what's actually happening on the ground, or a hypothetical example.
Are you saying that there should be a eugenic state founded on Mars? Well OK but it seems a bit impractical. Mars is a long way away.
State legitimacy could be about black people. Or black girls. Or cute black girls. Or having cute black girls. Or having lots of cute black girls. Or having literally all of the cute black girls. Or — GET AWAY FROM MY CUTE BLACK GIRLS YOU GODDAMNED BLUEBELLIED YANKEE SUMBITCH! I’LL CUT YA! I’LL CUT YA!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link