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 -
Let's suppose I believe in freedom of speech, including freedom speech for literal Nazis. Suppose also that I know that, whenever a Nazi or someone Nazi-adjacent commits a crime whoch appears to be motivated by his beliefs, many people say, "See! That is why hate speech must be banned!" Suppose also that I believe that Nazis are not evil but misguided or the like, in a "there but for the grace of God go I" manner.
Now suppose that one of my loved ones is murdered by a Nazi, because of the Nazi's hatred for the victim's race. Surely it would not be a mystery why I might preemptively say, "please don't use this tragedy as an excuse to limit free speech rights." Or, alternatively, why I might preemptively say "please hold no hate that relates to any political beliefs".
But, the parishioners at Mother Emanuel were average persons, where they not? The only think unusual about them is their faith. And, of course, many members who lost loved ones refused to forgive Roof. So, if you can understand why some Christians might make an expressed effort to act in a manner consistent with the principles that they value, why is it so hard to believe that those who hold other sets of values might make an expressed effort to act in manner consistent therewith? And, note that what the Mother Emanuel parishioners did was far, far more emotionally difficult than merely saying, "please don't use my loved one's death as an excuse to do bad things." So, I just don't get why you can understand the former, but not the latter.
And note that the families of murdered loved ones have to do all sorts of things in the light of their immense grief, such as make funeral arrangements. That would include responding to questions like, "what clothes would your dead loved one want to be buried in." I am sure that some people are so overwhelmed with grief that they are unable to deal with that, but are you surprised when people are able to coherently address those issues even in the light of immense grief? I doubt it. So why is it so surprising when someone says to themselves, "how would my dead loved one feel about people using her death to advance political goals with which she disagreed?" and acts accordingly?
Finally, surely it is a question of degree. If my loved one is killed in a terrorist attack by a Muslim, and as a result people begin burning down mosques and exterminating Muslims in the streets, wouldn't I have an obligation to speak out (assuming I disagreed therewith), regardless of my grief? Presumably so, so perhaps those parents simply draw the line in a place different than where you draw it.
Exactly. You respond as you do because you personally empathize more with the former than with the latter. Doesn’t that imply that your condemnation of the parents is based less in principle than on your personal whims, particularly difficulty in empathizing with those whose values differ slightly from yours?
Where is your evidence that anyone is taking advantage of them?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link