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 -
Black Labour MP Diane Abbot made to apologize for putting Blacks above Jews
Diane Abbot is a Black Labour UK MP, very left wing. The letter she sent is here, titled 'Racism is black and white'
I don't see why slavery in the US is at all relevant to the UK in a historical sense. As a matter of fact, Irish people were enslaved (the Barbary pirates really had a very long range, apparently reaching as far as Iceland) and one could make a case that they were effectively enslaved by English landowners during various periods. That all depends on the meaning of slavery vs forced labour or exploitation.
However, it wasn't the Irish or gypsies that caused her problems. She made the mistake of mentioning Jews, who take criticism extremely seriously. She was quickly expelled from the party (losing the whip) while Labour investigates. She's naturally made a grovelling apology which simultaneously provides a paper-thin excuse and then apologizes for how pathetic the excuse is:
As if that wasn't already an obvious lie, the Jewish Chronicle reports that she sent the letter twice: https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/diane-abbott-sent-observer-letter-twice-raising-doubts-over-draft-claims-3hCBdkWRfU9P5xJloIPUEa
Adding to Abbott's conceptualization of 'prejudice' vs 'Racism', where the latter is more significant, I propose a third level of 'ANTI-SEMITISM'.
prejudice would be something like when Sarah Jeong says “Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” Or "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling [sic] goblins?" She can get away with making a lukewarm apology saying it was satire and she 'can understand how hurtful it was out of context'. No job repercussions. Or when the press decides to capitalize Black but not white. On the other hand, this might not even reach the level of prejudice - if it does it might only be by making whiteness invisible, as some Black scholars have claimed in the link above. The debate goes on.
Racism would be when Benedict Cumberbatch inadvertently used the outdated term 'colored people' when he was calling for British acting to provide more opportunities to Blacks. He gave a much more sincere apology: "I feel the complete fool I am and while I am sorry to have offended people and to learn from my mistakes in such a public manner, please be assured I have." There was some speculation this would impact his chances of getting an Oscar that year, sure enough he didn't. Obviously we can't tell if it actually did affect his chances, who knows? I personally can't model the mindset of people who'd get upset over somebody using the wrong language as they call for more Black representation, so I can't tell if this is completely ridiculous or not. Another incident of Racism might be when Quinn Norton was also considered for the NYT tech role but had apparently defended a friendship with a white supremacist - she lost her recently offered job within hours.
ANTI-SEMITISM would be when Abbott says Jews aren't as discriminated against as blacks and has to fight hard for her job and position in the party. Or when Kanye criticizes Jews and gets promptly excluded by his business partners, lawyers, JP Morgan, Kim and so on. ANTI-SEMITISM has immediate and crushing consequences, especially if it's high-grade and unapologetic like the latter case.
I think this threefold distinction is useful, since it distinguishes between de facto and de jure. Formally all three are encompassed within prejudice. Formally, Cumberbatch's slip-up couldn't even be a slip-up at all. But in reality some prejudices wash off and others burn like acid. The British Labour Party's been facing heavy pressure for being anti-Semitic under Corbyn - as if that was the worst of its problems. Corbyn had a wide range of radical policies and proposals: unilateral nuclear disarmament, renationalizing rail and energy, republicanism, calling for NATO to be disbanded. But he wasn't suspended from the party until he dared to play down accusations of anti-Semitism.
Diane Abbot has all kinds of problems - innumeracy for one. Answering questions about Labour policy. Or drinking alcohol on the London Underground, which is banned. Yet she didn't get suspended from the party for clownish incompetence. In short, incompetence or prejudice is trivial, Racism is serious and ANTI-SEMITISM is apocalyptic.
There's a kind of pattern that conservatives fall into when they say 'this is ridiculous, all kinds of civilizations practiced slavery' or 'the British Empire was the first to ban slavery, pay enormous sums to free slaves and conduct anti-slavery operations across the world. It collapsed only after bringing down Hitler and Mussolini, who were not exactly BLM activists' (implying that some gratitude is owed for past assistance), or 'anti-white racism is still racism by this dictionary definition'. Yet it's manifestly not Racism when you attack whites, there are so few consequences. There are no consequences when unis have race-based admission systems that work against whites or Asians for that matter. This is somewhat acknowledged in the 'imagine if the situation was reversed!' meme. I think this is an important and under-appreciated concept, somewhat like a motte-and-bailey except for the meaning of words.
The international English speaking left is actually extremely Americanized. They will often come off as anti American, but they are really just anti red tribe.
The right tends to be more rural, small town, outdoorsy, and proud of their nation's history. They are often painted as wanting to Americanize their countries but really it's just that they have no particular grievance towards red tribe America and don't see any problem with borrowing ideas that seem to be working.
The left sees itself as part of an international progressive movement to improve the world. The movement is largely centered in the US and had it's greatest victories there. The enemies of that movement must be demonized. Even if they are thousands of miles away.
So the left in the UK will talk about America a lot. The BBC has things like Doctor Who meeting Rosa Parks instead of exploring racism with local history. Obama is extremely beloved and above criticism in a way that he isn't in the US.
I find it a very interesting topic that isn't widely discussed.
TBH I sort of wanted to say that but my post was already getting quite long. I end up writing things and leaving in words like 'historical sense' that try to delineate between historical logic and the gravity well of US cultural dominance. But, quite reasonably, nobody gets the meaning from these single words I leave in because it's not terribly clear. There was going to be a sentence about how it was an effect of US cultural hegemony.
I suppose that's the whole point of discussion boards, people can expand on individual points they like most. You put in more than I was going to.
More options
Context Copy link
This topic is a hobby horse of mine which I've written about more than once in the context of Ireland.
More options
Context Copy link
Here's a test I use with some of my UK friends who are "political"*: how many US Supreme Court judges can they name? How many of their representatives (local, national, or Westminster) can they name?
I usually play this game during a discussion on the epistemic value of democracy, after I have raised the claim that democratic politics is more entertainment than a deliberative process. US politics is much more outrageous and "interesting" than their local councillor, MP, AM or whatever; it entertains them more, so they invest more of their precious time and energy following it.
You might say that UK politics is more high profile, but it's very easy nowadays to find out e.g. your council area, and even to carry on an extended email correspondence with councillors about some issue that's bothering you. In my experience when I lived in the UK, local politicians are often relieved to be talking to people other than the "usual suspects" of cranks, and in the UK system (especially England) there are politicians with meaningful authority and small electorates, so they are often interested in what specific local people think about them.
On the other hand, they're not being talked about in online political spaces, like US Supreme Court judges.
*With a few exceptions, my UK right-wing friends are either older and can name more than just their MP, or younger and apolitical in general, except maybe a few lines they will parrot from Jordan Peterson or some other Youtube celeb. It can be very weird to be talking to someone who is uninterested in politics or social theory suddenly start saying, "The problem with Marxism is that it just looks at hierarchies of dominance."
Yes, this is my point: they are political for the entertainment value, not to actually accomplish things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link