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 -
Thanks for sharing. But I'm nearly as tired of Holocaust-themed morality plays as I am of the Civil Rights Era-flavored ones. Has anyone under age 70 not been bludgeoned through their entire lives with "Prejudice is bad!" and "The banality of evil!" and "Never again!" etc?
I don't understand people who write books on these themes in 2014. Is there even the thinnest residue of stunning bravery to be mined and exploited by speaking truth to a (long vanquished) power? I have to imagine that even blue tribers would yawn at yet another Holocaust tear jerker or To Kill a Mockingbird clone, "don't they know trans persecution or MAGA terrorism are where the points are scored in 2023?" And even dispensing with the cynicism, is there really anything interesting left to say on these topics? I'd wager that nearly any book you could write on them has already been written.
As I've remarked when every new "fascist" politician is compared to Hitler, it speaks to a lack of interest in the breadth of history, even in the relatively narrow scope of 20th century genocides, fascist regimes, or political oppression. Why does it seem like basically no one is interested in comparing their opponent to Franco instead of Hitler, for example? I suppose it's just not enough of a cultural touchstone, but it would at least make me pause for a moment and think about whether they have a point, as where yet another Hitler comparison completely fails to do so.
Franco, Pinochet, etc have much higher risk of opposing politicians and their supporters responding with the yeschad.jpg image.
The blue tribe generally views these men as Spanish-speaking Hitler, but to non-blue tribers they were standard strongmen at worst and benevolent dictators at best, and it's worth noting that the one occasion of democrats in the US comparing their enemies to these guys was a Biden Spanish-language ad campaign in south Florida in which he called Trump a Caudillo. Needless to say this campaign clearly didn't work.
It's only slightly more interesting why Mao and Stalin don't get used in comparisons; Mao is weird and foreign and Stalin does sometimes get used in political comparisons, just less commonly than Hitler(or Fidel Castro, for that matter- the red tribe tends to see him as unmitigated evil while the blue tribe has more nuanced views in an interesting reversal of the situation with Franco and Pinochet).
Far-leftists might likewise reply to Stalin comparisons with a yeschad.jpg, but only if they're in so deep that they've effectively created a whitewashed version of Stalin in their head, and are as committed to Holodomor denialism as neo-Nazis are to Holocaust denialism.
Sure, I was trying to mostly be talking about people closer to the mainstream than tankies or neonazis.
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