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 -
I read something today which I have long thought deep down, but hadn’t really seen spelled out elsewhere.
Namely, the censoring done by the liberal left, while there, is rather mild in the scheme of things and is probably much less than the same left would be censored by the people it currently censors if that group was in power.
The quote that brought it to my mind was from here, on Richard Hannania’s substack. After a post discussing being banned by Twitter, he drops this at the end of the article.
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/saying-goodbye-to-twitter
The attitude of censoring opponents seemed to have crystallized for the left around 2016, where I distinctly remember the conversation centering around the limits of tolerating intolerant ideologies. (Which seems to have become fully settled by now, interesting to observe an ideological movement update in real time in that way).
Does Hannania have a point here? Is the issue that the right takes offense with censorship itself, or would the right if it actually gained back power censor in a much more strict and comprehensive way?
It seems trivially true that whoever is in power will be biased in favor of censorship, and this is the left’s turn. Fair enough.
But the right, I’m told, already had a go at social regulation, and it seems to pale in comparison to what’s happening now. From where I’m standing it’s the right’s failure to “censor in a much more strict and comprehensive way” that has landed us where we are today.
You can’t have it both ways. The resentment I feel radiating off of the online Gen X and older Millennials gives me the impression that the Christian family-values right was so stifling, so overbearing to the extent of being undeserving of political legitimacy. And I can agree that they now appear to not have any political legitimacy. But what socially-left ideas did they manage to stop? For all the hegemony, where is the territory?
So to hold these ideas that the right was at one time censorious, which proves that they’ll try it again in the extreme if allowed, it’s in tension with the fact that they did quickly lose control and whatever the left is doing now seems to be much more effective.
If anyone here is willing to claim that he professed Christian tenets, aloud, to keep his job, or pretended to support the invasion of Iraq to keep his job, this would make me back off these claims.
Well wokeness itself, emerged from basically a coalition of those who were outsiders to the right (or at least to a particular ascendant variety of the right). Do we need to recap over gay people hiding in the closet et al? Women being denied work opportunities? Redlining and Jim Crow? 1950's gender roles?
You're not going back far enough if you are asking about Iraq. The seeds of wokeness were sown decades before that. The 90's and early 2000's were roughly where both sides were in balance, shifting from one cultural hegemon to another if you will. The right did not quickly lose control (to the extent they have, see below), it was a slow decades long process.
But if it helps, even today in my small Red rural town, I do not admit to being an atheist. It was only 10 years ago that:
"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to."
And in many places that still holds. As I said a week or two ago, don't confuse the national media dominance of the blue tribe to think that red tribe conservative values are not dominant in many local places.
Meh, that hasn't really been my experience. I live in a pretty red part of the country and work in a gun store. I'm an open atheist and nobody gives a shit (at least not out loud). I've clocked a few shady looks about my discussion of religion and politics, but a Purple Heart covers all sins on the right. As with race, sexuality etc. I don't think it's atheism at all that people object to, it's the politics they assume goes along with it. Prove you're not the outgroup, and the atheism doesn't matter. The right thinks the left hates America. I can prove I don't, so they're fine with it.
This is a bit tougher with the left. There's no straightforward path to legitimacy for heretics.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair there is a big difference between not voting for an atheist and banning the atheist from free speech.
I don’t have any belief that a person like myself could become the Presidential nomination for the Democratic Party but I think in 1995 I could hire you as my investment banker. I am not sure that I could openly be myself at Goldman Sachs or google today. Theirs a huge hosts of elite employers today where I’m unemployable today even if I had impeccable qualifications.
I am sure job limitations happened significantly in the past but now it’s like 40% of the population is excluded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link