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 -
But my whole point is that whether it was political or controversial when they put it in is irrelevant.
That is privileging historical people and judgement over current people. And that is already deciding the argument between conservatism and progressivism. The question is WHY should that previous judgement get that benefit? When current judgement does not?
What previous judgment? It wasn't controversial. No judgment was needed, any more than it was needed for the plastic grass, unless you're going to say that everything is a judgment.
There was presumably a point where slavery and child sacrifice was uncontroversial. A judgement is still made controversial or not. Maybe its just a rubber stamp if no one is complaining about it back then sure.
But if the San Diego Aztecs were defending their wearing child sacrifice ribbons then "Well it wasn't controversial when we started doing it 200 hundred years ago" isn't (to me!) very persuasive. The fact everyone loved child sacrifice then has no bearing on if it is ok now. Maybe it was an easy decision by the ancients because everyone "knew" it was ok.
But the ancients are dead and gone. What they judged to be uncontroversial doesn't really matter.
If plastic grass is controversial now, then it is controversial now. That generations of plastic loving supporters thought it was great isn't as important as what people now think.
It matters because of the question of who introduced the politics. If something was introduced when it wasn't controversial, it isn't "Introducing politics". If it later becomes controversial, that still doesn't mean that anyone has introduced politics.
The actual scenario isn't really "plastic grass is controversial". It's "a couple of noisy people suddenly decided that they don't like plastic grass and assigned political meaning to it". "A couple of noisy people" isn't "controversial"; it doesn't go by "at least one person doesn't like it so it's controversial".
It was always politics, there was just only one side no? If they were wearing pro-democracy armbands it's not non-political just because everyone is (hypothetically) in agreement with the same position.
It doesn't make sense to count that as politics. If that counted as politics, then everything is politics. "Don't introduce politics" would be meaningless.
After reading this comment’s context up to this point, I’d like to remind people “partisan” and “political” have separate but oft-conflated meanings. If explicated, this distinction might benefit this conversation.
Usually it’s partisanship which is decried amongst polite company, under the euphemism of “politics” which more properly describes who does and doesn’t have power. Noticing people with specific shared attributes tend to accumulate and sometimes monopolize certain forms of power is what makes politics partisan.
Standing to honor the flag has always been political, since flags are by their very natures political objects. It used to be we Americans would scuffle over who better represented the sacred flag. Colin made the flag itself partisan by making its sacredness partisan.
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly. What people seem to mean when they say that is "Don't do things I think are political but it is ok to do things I think are so correct they are obviously not political"
Singing the national anthem is clearly political. If the NFL decided to stop doing that before games they would be removing politics, but it would be seen by many people as introducing politics. In reality the politics was introduced when singing the anthem was, just nobody cared because they were all on the same page.
Just to be clear I am not saying that being political is bad, or that taking the position that singing the anthem is bad. I think it is both political AND probably good from a building a national and civic identity point of view.
But if someone is arguing that kneeling during the anthem is introducing politics then I think it is fair to argue that playing the anthem itself is also politics, when it was introduced is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean either the kneeling or playing the anthem is good/bad in and of itself.
I just told you what I meant. It's controversy, not correctness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link