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 -
Judging people entirely by what they wrote years ago is such a weak, modern thing.
Go back a century or two (or even to the middle of the twentieth century) and huge ideological journeys over the course of a lifetime, from left to right, from right to left, back again, across religion and secularism, republicanism and absolutism, liberty and tyranny are commonplace among public intellectuals, writers, politicians and philosophers.
One thing arguably quite unique about progressive cancel culture is its utter resistance to even capitulation or apology. Most historical ideological movements were quite happy to adopt former foes if they agreed to repent. Yes, you had to convert or die, but at least you could convert. This was the normal thing. Often only those who refused out of principle to convert, or (in rarer cases) who were believed to have converted insincerely, were not spared. The CCP famously even spared and converted the last Emperor of China, who was widely considered to have gladly sold out his countrymen to the Japanese (and so was not merely hated for being a monarch).
It speaks to the fear, the emptiness, the hollowness of progressive ideology that they actually don't believe they can facilitate sincere conversions to the faith. 'If you once denounced us, you are an enemy for all time' isn't something that comes from a position of strength but from one of weakness.
In fairness, this was less about their philosophy on forgiveness (his wife, the empress, died in a CCP prison) and a very large part to do with them learning from the backlash the Bolsheviks experieced after killing the Romanovs.
There are some incredible, SNL-skit worthy scenes of Puyi trying to reintegrate to normal life and going to get an ID from the local government office that go somewhat like:
Bored DMV-esque Employee: Name?
Puyi: Yaozhi
Employee: Former occupation?
Puyi: Uhhh Emperor of the Celestial Kingdom of China
Employee: Haha no seriously though
She died of opium withdrawal and (self-imposed) starvation, though, historians don't believe she was murdered. Her brother was later released, worked for the government and died in 2007.
But I agree Puyi's story is funny, has its own charm. It shows how total a regime change is when you can have someone like that around, safe in the knowledge that they are now, truly, a nobody.
Made even more poignant by that he was the figurehead of a failed Qing restoration, and in adulthood still had aspirations to restore the Qing (a good part of how he got convinced to act as a Japanese puppet).
I’ve always found his story (and Wanrong’s) to be quite sad, if not too sympathy-inducing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link