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 just wasn't murderous enough. The highest numbers I can find for his killings are in the low hundreds of thousands, which makes him a piker by 20th century standards. Occasionally you get comparisons to Mussolini, who outside of war deaths probably killed fewer, but he gets to enjoy some of the evil rubbed off of Hitler.
If people weren't combining ignorance and hyperbole, I think the comparably low death tolls from guys like Franco and Pinochet make them much more plausible cautionary tales. There isn't really a plausible path to the Nazification of the United States, but killing a few hundred political prisoners (of either side) doesn't seem like it's something that definitely won't happen. As an avowed anti-communist, you probably can't really get me to condemn either one of them in strong terms, which makes the comparison even more effective! When someone says that the guy I support is like Pinochet, I don't immediately roll my eyes and say they're ridiculous.
I'd say that in most cases hyperbole is the point. They are sick of arguing and just trying to insult you by likening you to something unambiguously bad.
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