site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 2023

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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The use of race or ethnicity as the basis for the higher or highest classes of society was far more explicit in previous empires, that's my point

I understood the point, but I am not convinced at all that is is actually true.

But where I draw a line is in trying to claim that the only reason someone could object to the use of "barbarian" to describe immigrants (illegal if you want that qualifier) is that they are some kind of social progressive

I didn't ever mention progressives, but everybody knows who are the clowns, right? ;) But it's not exactly what I meant. What I meant is that there are people who are interested in discussing issues, and there are people who are interested in policing other people's behavior, online and offline. That comment was intended to emphasize that I am not interested in the second part, I consider them largely clowns, regardless of their political affiliation (though truth be told, they mostly lean to the left). And if there's a tiny part of them that are not clowns but seriously worry that people may inadvertently and unknowingly cause offense and they would be helpful if they tactfully point it out - this case is not that case. This usage is specific usage in context, and I explained the context and the intent. I do not require your "charity" here - it's not "charity" to not call me a liar and attribute me something that is contrary to my explicitly expressed intent, it's just basic decency, and default expected behavior for which one gets no bonus points.

If you doubt this, go and talk to any of the non-progressive immigrants you are talking about and call them that, see what happens.

I talk to them (us) every day, and what I usually find is that they (us) are much less triggered by words - especially taken out of context - than the clown crowd.

I didn't ever mention progressives, but everybody knows who are the clowns, right?

When a Nazi talks about 108 countries in a vague manner, both sides are aware that it's a reference to the Jews. Likewise, "clown world" is largely a right-wing word used to condemn liberal/progressive/materialist things.

This usage is specific usage in context, and I explained the context and the intent.

And I am criticizing your justification. You do not get to handwave away the accuracy of that justification just because you don't want to talk about it.

I do not require your "charity" here - it's not "charity" to not call me a liar and attribute me something that is contrary to my explicitly expressed intent, it's just basic decency, and default expected behavior for which one gets no bonus points.

"Basic decency" is precisely to be charitable. It's the same thing.

I talk to them (us) every day, and what I usually find is that they (us) are much less triggered by words - especially taken out of context - than the clown crowd.

You are telling me that you go around and tell those people that they are uncivilized savages who are culturally inferior and don't even speak a proper language, and they don't mind? I'll believe it when I see it.

I must object to the idea that “policing other people’s behavior” is “mostly lean[ing] to the left.” And that the dominant form of behavior-policing consists of objecting to “triggers.”