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 -
Wrong. Responsibility has a large part to play, but it's not the victim's responsibility to avoid it. It's the victim's responsibility to deal with it, grow stronger, and continue to stick to good morals and the path of God. The path you and @Hoffmeister25 are taking is fundamentally weak, that's why 'normie' conservatives don't like it.
This may be true in some scenarios, while at the same time it's true that the larger society, and a specific subset of progressives in particular, are at fault. You are trying to reduce out all of the context and nuance in these situations and make it black and white, between you and 'leftists,' your sworn enemies. Again, I think that type of response is weak and leads to horrible outcomes. I reject it entirely.
The path the normies take is "don't make trouble", and it's the weakest of all. It just leads to them not realizing they've lost anything until the day they find out they're no longer a "normie", if that day ever comes.
Rejecting the black and white just leads to the current situation where the left steamrollers everything. If you get a sexual harassment complaint for saying hello to the wrong girl, that's wrong. Trying to find some sort of "nuance" which excuses both the complainant and the consequences to the complainee while still agreeing that the complaint is wrong is futile; it's not logically or politically possible. It's not nuance, it's hypocrisy or capitulation masquerading as such.
More options
Context Copy link
I read "Then go somewhere you aren't surrounded by enemies, as @Amadan and many other users have been saying" as "it's the victim's responsibility to avoid it". And you said that two posts up.
It's the victim's responsibility to, if they are in a place or situation where their morals or sense of right and wrong is continually violated, find a place or set of relationships where their values are respected. From there they need to start working to live those positive values and encourage others to do the same by example.
Complaining about your situation, refusing to change anything, and calling for violence is not an admirable response at all in my view.
How is "it's the victim's responsibility to find a place where their values are respected" different from "it's the victim's responsibility to avoid it"? (Where "it" means "their values aren't respected")
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't understand how the proverb connects to your answer.
It sounds like you are saying that if someone becomes a victim twice, they don't count as a victim at all, so it's okay to tell them to avoid being victimized. Is that a correct reading?
I'm saying that people should be open, honest and trusting as a general rule, because that's the right thing to do. If you get burned by that, it's not your fault. It's not your responsibility to be so cynical and closed off from the world that you never get hurt.
However if you repeatedly get hurt in similar ways, it's your responsibility to look at the situation, figure out why you're getting hurt, and either change yourself or your situation to avoid being victimized further.
People still 'count as a victim' although I'm not sure what this phrase means exactly even if they're victimized twice. But the duty of a victim is to grow beyond their victimization into a more actualized human, in my view, and hopefully help prevent the victimization they dealt with in the future.
I still don't see the difference between "it's the responsibility of the victim to avoid the situation" (which we both agree is terrible) and "it's the responsibility of the victim to change themself or their situation". If you say that those aren't the same, that seems to be very fine hairsplitting between "changing the situation isn't avoiding" or "changing yourself isn't changing the situation" or "when I say that a 'victim should' I don't mean to count people who are repeatedly hurt as victims".
It's absolutely possible to get hurt several times, through no fault of your own, under circumstances where it's unreasonable to just escape. If you demand that they escape, that's victim blaming, no matter how much hairsplitting you can do about "that's totally different from saying that it's the victim's responsibility to avoid it".
Eh, I disagree. At least in the modern first world, there's almost always a choice. Our ancestors faced far worse situations and made a hell of a lot of progress despite awful impediments. I think any modern Westerner who tries to make the argument that it's unreasonable to escape their circumstances is just making excuses.
Call that victim blaming if you want, that's how life is. All life is suffering. It's your job to live in a way that reduces that suffering and makes some meaning out of it.
And for all your drilling down on me in this extremely specific scenario - what the hell does it matter? Are you trying to catch me in a gotcha of 'You're victim blaming!'?. What's your end goal here?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link