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 -
It just struck me. We haven’t had a pure meta thread. What is at the core of the breakdown in America between two sides. Is it just social media boosting of traditional sports team enthusiasm in sports? And at its core team left and team right get along in person but in online like fighting each other for entertainment? Team left likes standing up a fentanyl addicted criminal as a martyr or a male swimmer in female sports to accuse those who will take the other side as racists Hitler types? And team right likes to own them. Or is there some marxists conspiracy or Christian white behind all this?
I’ll take the view that traditional status symbols still dominate day to day life. I’ll take the view that liberal rich trust fund kid is still going to date the hot brunette from Vassar. And the liberal girl will still marry the frat boy whose parents are real estate developers.
Sure I’m setting up a lot of motte and Bailey’s. Is this just a game among elites and then followed on by keyboard warriors on social media.
I have a few hypotheses:
1). Politics have become a source of identification in the twenty first century much like church denominations would have in the Christian world, Or philosophy would have in the Greek or Roman world. Thus, conflict between the “tribes” to use Scott’s terminology is much like would have happened between Catholics and Protestants in the reformation. The point wasn’t just the differences, but that this “other” by not being like you, by being a heretic, they are a threat against the good. As evidence, I’d point out things that have little to do with politics being coded for one tribe or the other. For example that blues like coffee shops or indie movies, reds like beer and action movies.
2). Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics. And once politics becomes that important to how people actually live, it cannot help but be really contentious. I don’t want my six year old learning about pronouns, but politicized education means that unless you’re involved vocally in politics, you can’t stop it. When you’re forced to hide your beliefs from others because they’re not inclusive enough, politics becomes more important to you.
3). The increased economic division between rich and poor makes politics more pressing. The border is a threat to the poor who struggle to make it while watching millions of people pour over the border to compete for their jobs. The hollowing out of good paying jobs from rural areas has made life harder for rural areas.
I think that this one is downstream of whatever the real problem is. People turning toxic and inserting politics into everything seems to me like the symptom, not the disease. It's definitely a problem though.
I’m sort of libertarian adjacent, so my thinking is that it’s because of state power being able to reach into everything in ways that tyrants of 100 years ago could only dream of. Through the civil rights act and liability issues stemming from them, the state can force your boss (for fear of lawsuits) to insert himself into what used to be private matters between employees. You’re an ass if you’re touching women on the ass, or deliberately antagonizing LGBT people, or using the N-word as a descriptive term. But such things should be able to be handled by those involved. I’m perfectly capable, as a woman, of telling you to cut it out. I think any functioning adult should be able to politely but firmly tell the person to stop being an ass.
There’s also the technology. It used to be (pre-cellphone) that unless someone in power happened to overhear the conversation or a tattletale did, it was perfectly reasonable to ignore it. Nobody could find out what you really think about and issue unless they heard it themselves or someone tattled. Internet, cameras, and social media have changed the game, and effectively collapsed the private sphere (unless you take great pains to lock down everything and only talk freely among trusted people) meaning that now any powerful person in your life can freely judge your opinions and words even if they weren’t said to that person or anyone who knew that person. I can watch you on camera and see (and sometimes hear) if you’re doing things that indicate crime-think.
All of this power, imo turns politics into a toxic stew. When the state can dictate the ethnic and gender ratios of your staff, when they can determine if you’re doing enough to not be liable for a “toxic work environment”, and can determine which groups are more worthy of protection, this makes politics much more high stakes. And I think the same is true of the regulations around safety and health and quality and so on. When a state becomes powerful enough, everything becomes political because you can use a powerful state to get your way in whatever form that takes. The government can force educators to teach a certain way and keep secrets from parents and so on, and thus angry parents yell at the school board. It’s now politically charged.
To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues. And once the government stops regulating and enforcing such things, I think the temperature on political debates goes back down. If the state isn’t going to make your business liable for every word your employees say and maybe not having enough trainings, then I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal.
I don't know if this would fix it, but damn I would love to see this. I really resent that people are trying to turn the government into my mom. Yes, I don't necessarily make the best choices (though I obviously try). But they're mine, dammit. That's the whole point of being an adult. Stop trying to get the government involved. It almost certainly doesn't know better than me, and even if it did, it's infantilizing and insulting.
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