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 -
I think this AstralCodexTen can help give some insight:https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way
The basis is, today, who uses the word "negro"? Two types of people: Extremely clueless old people, and vile racists*. So if you use it, and you don't look like you're at least 95 years old, everyone will assume you're a vile racist. Now think about who used the word "negro" 30 years ago. The answer is a lot more old people, not all of whom are clueless, some just don't want to change the word they always used, and vile racists. But fewer and fewer respectable people used it, because it was associated with vile racists, and there's no reason to use it when "black" worked just as well. So it became more and more associated with vile racists. And so on until the 50s-60s when it was actually just another word, the polite way to refer to a black person that government forms and black people themselves used.
I think there is a similar effect with political positions of being against coloured immigration. In 1910, it was perfectly respectable to want your community to be all white. You didn't have to be a vile racist to want to avoid black people in your community, you could just want to have your own separate culture in your neighborhood and have no personal enmity to black people. Although the hateful racists certainly did exist and did push, probably the hardest, against desegregation then too. Then over time, more and more people wanted to strongly signal they weren't hateful racists, and loudly declared they supported immigration. And then eventually being against multiculturalism was position only held by hateful racists. World War 2 accelerated this effect greatly as well, since Hitler was the loudest and most hateful of all racists, and he of course was also a great enemy of the Allies, so people had to try extra hard to make clear they were not a hateful racist like Hitler.
*I'm not exaggerating for effect. Even HBD types or other reactionaries who hold no hate in their heart but just want ethnostates don't use the word 'negro' today. It's only the vile people who want to be purposefully offensive and who hold a lot of hate and cruelty in their hearts who use it.
The word "negro" is chiefly used by vile racists...and extremely clueless old people. The two types of people who use the word "negro" are vile racists, extremely clueless old people...and those who want to finance college for black students. The three types of people who use the word "negro" are vile racists, extremely clueless old people, those who want to finance college for black students...and parodists with an almost fanatical devotion to irony.
...and people alluding to the era when it was the preferred nomenclature.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link