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 -
On the one hand, I agree that @hannikrummihundursvin is not speaking plainly, insofar as he is not accurately articulating his own personal beliefs. However, I think that what he’s doing here straddles the line between trolling and steelmanning in a really interesting way. The fact that so many people are interpreting his stated viewpoints as genuine is a testament to how convincingly and effectively he is representing a sincere and widespread progressive belief.
I see him as trying to take away a convenient off-ramp normally available to conservatives/“classical liberals” by forcing them to actually grapple with a far more persuasively-worded presentation of the progressive worldview than what is normally presented in this sub. This is especially effective because, as a right-winger, he understands what particular moral sentiments can be targeted in order to make a certain flavor of conservative susceptible to progressive arguments. (This is a strategy at which actual progressives have proven surprisingly adept, which is why 21st-century “conservatives” have thoroughly imbibed the basic worldview of 20th-century radical progressives.)
Sure, in order to speak more plainly, he should have prefaced each of his posts with “if I were a progressive I would say…” but I think that would actually detract from what he’s trying to do, because it would reintroduce that “off-ramp” and allow his interlocutors to not have to fully engage with the content of the arguments he’s making.
I hope that we're still allowed to do that, even with those who "straddle" trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link