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 -
To add to this, the Spanish women's team was already very unhappy with the Spanish federation.
They were in open protest before the world cup, and won by ignoring their coach's instructions and with half the 1st team 'exiled' from the squad.
They won despite Rubiales (who put his weight behind the coach). He was the villain in the story even before the kiss. (Yes, the team was that absurdly strong. Sort of like a USA NBA team)
The previous post annoyed me. It was written by someone who went looking for a culture war angle, and came out with the least charitable interpretation of the whole thing, just so it looked like SJWs had gone too far.
Some men deserve to cancelled. (or at least fired for gross incompetence)
This post and OP annoy me since they accuse others of looking for a culture war angle when they are doing the same thing.
I mean, I don't actually care about the Spanish womens national team. Like, at all. Never spared them a thought or wondered if their bureaucracy is efficient. It might as well not exist. But I am sure that if it were a mens team being retarded by some women in positions of power that I could muster up some ingroup bias to care. At least enough to add it as another mark against an outgroup. Hell, my carefree disposition of indifference towards this is all a product of my biases.
Point here being that I'm not here pretending that I'm not on a side even if this thing isn't emotionally animating. And I think it would do a lot of 'rational' minded people a lot of good to recognize how their indifference is not indifference at all.
If Rubiales was incompetent he should be removed on those grounds. But that's not what's going on. Instead the public incident is being used as a weapon to oust him. On that front, how can you say, from a culture war neutral perspective, that Rubiales isn't just playing an optimal power game? If his detractors wanted him gone, why not go after the actual substantive stuff? Instead they hand him this publicity stunt to play around with. Now they can't remove him without perceptions being that it's because of a kiss.
I don't think you realized how entrenched in corruption the various heads of FAs are and how widely they're despised by everyone. This is the perfect opportunity because his misdeeds are dragged into the limelight; nobody cares about Rubiales siphoning off millions for sex orgies or cocaine, this kiss made national news, and it's easier to pressure FIFA to remove him if it's on the front page of all Western media.
I can tell you don't follow football at all, this isn't a culture war issue at all. This is mainly about corruption within the RFEF and this is the perfect opportunity to get rid of Rubiales.
Casillas (the captain of the 2010 men's team who won the WC) has spoken out against him. Xavi has as well. Sergio Ramos has hated Rubiales when he was still captain. Florentino Perez absolutely fucking despises the man and despite being one of the most powerful people in Spain, he can't do shit to Rubiales.
Again, if you don't follow the sport, you may not realize how absolutely hated the heads of the FAs are across all nations. Fans and players will gladly use any excuse as a way to get rid of them. Argentina has just won the fucking WC, and people still hate Chiqui Tapia (he's even called "Chiqui Mafia" because of how corrupt he is).
The corruption is seriously disgusting and impossible to get rid of. You have shit like a 79 member body producing an anonymous 40-40 split of votes for the head of the FA.
Followed by
It can't be both. Either everyone knows and cares enough to despise them, or they don't.
Your comment sucks.
I know, from playing and watching plenty of football, that most people who watch don't care at all about corruption. They 'know' about it, sure, but they are not activists in any sense. Events like the Calciopoli corruption scandal in 2004 don't mean anything. People still show up to watch the next game and cheer for their side because it's a hobby. Every event is just more entertainment. And what else can you expect? Football is not a democratic thing.
You just don't have an argument. Which is why you need to leverage your culture warring with the appearance of being in the know, when all you are doing is projecting your own opinion into the world and trying to mold it around it.
But maybe that view of mine is wrong. To help me understand your position here: Do you not care about womens rights at all? Is this all just a shadow campaign to fight corruption?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the entire chain of reasoning is "this dog is vicious: it bites when you kick it"
More options
Context Copy link
Removing people on purely substantive grounds is difficult even when you're right. Ousting power requires some level of opportunism.
Unilateral disarmament would be a noble if naive goal, but if you can excuse Rubiales' blatant lies you can just as well excuse an opportunistic ousting. Otherwise it's pure who-whom, and no point discussing further.
I'm not advocating for disarmament or lamenting the actions of Rubiales or the people who want him gone. I am lamenting the posturing of people here who are acting like they are just on the side of reason and common sense as opposed to the people 'waging a culture war' when in reality they are just waging a culture war from a different angle.
You can't call out the actions of Rubiales as being nefarious or less sympathetic, like was done by OP, because he is transparently playing out some power game when you then admit that the whole thing is a power play to begin with designed to get the guy fired.
You also can't point to some mild opportunism and say it delegitimizes all other complaints. That leads to pure who-whom, which sucks.
Your protest is like asking why the USG went after Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his actual crimes. The answer is obvious and it doesn't make him innocent.
That's not what is being done. You can be a SJW or an anti-corruption advocate or whatever thing it is in the culture war that animates you, just say that's what you are. Don't pretend to be one to pursue the other or some variation thereof.
It's not but whatever. If we know the witch floats why bother throwing her in the water? Maybe, if you can't oust a corrupt president or prosecute a guilty criminal for his actual crimes, the issue is broader than those specific individuals and throwing them to the dogs won't do much to solve it. In either case I am not impressed by people who insinuate they are acting better than others when they are transparently not.
This is disarmament. So you are advocating unilateral disarmament then? Unless your demand is only for your enemies, in which case yes they will of course ignore it.
They should just get off without any charges? If your commitment to due process and the impartial hand of justice is that great, you can't turn around later and defend Rubiales' because he's on your team.
I'm not advocating for lawless vigilantism or witch burning. I'm pointing out that one party engaging in power politics doesn't necessarily disqualify their legitimate complaints.
You need to explain what you mean by "disarmament". I don't understand what you mean.
That's the opposite of what I am saying. My point is that if your legal framework can't work itself around an obvious criminal then the problem might be with the legal framework.
And I'm saying there are two parties engaging in power politics and that makes it a fair game for both. I don't understand what you want here. I am very sure Rubiales thinks he has legitimate complaints as well.
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