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 -
The situation boiled down to two options -- do something that will leave you destroyed, or suffer extreme humiliation. It was deliberately constructed by the filmmakers that way. In-film it was constructed by the cop that way -- and such sadists exist in real life.
Frustration and anger, naturally. But also recognition. Because there are many situations a modern person under a modern government faces all the time that are similar, though the consequences for yielding are usually lesser. The government causes a problem or refuses to address one, but also provides such negative incentives to anyone solving them themselves that it makes sense to just suffer the problem. Homeless people menace and assault others on NYC subways. Groups of urban youths camp on rental bikes, preventing renters from using them. Farmers have their livestock taken by Federally protected predators -- or the suburban version, Federally protected geese shit all over people's lawns and parks. The commonality is there's a problem and fairly simple direct action one can take to solve it, but the government forbids the direct action. By itself the direct action might be risky, but add the government in and it's no longer risky; loss of some sort is near-certain, and now it works out that suffering the original problem is clearly the right move.
As Hlynka noted with a somewhat different valence, the job of the government isn't to protect regular people from criminals; it's to protect criminals from regular people. And that job they do.
I'm arguing that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Yes, we live in low-grade anarcho-tyranny. But part of that is the ability to circumvent or subvert that system. You just have to be willing to color outside the lines a bit. Lean into the anarchy to contravene the tyranny.
Of course, that risks the benefits of social status granted by the tyrant, which you value and I do not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link