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 -
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-russell-brand-caroline-dinenage-mps-twitter-b2415346.html
https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1704607541852844072/photo/1
I think that it is important. But I am at loss of words so I am not even sure where to begin to make it effortpost. It is outrageous, indefensible and at first I though it was satire.
Do think this is rogue action? (my guess no), Will there be punishment for the MP for overstepping greatly any boundaries? (also no).
It's amazing that seemingly overnight, a norm was kayfabed into existence that people accused of sex pestery should be deplatformed/demonetized off all social media. Like this has always been the case, and has been applied in a politically neutral way. Despite, to my knowledge, this is literally the first time it's ever happened.
The political motivations for this are naked as can be. Even in the initial reporting, it was included in the article that none of the women chose to come forward, they were sought out by reporters. At least that's what I heard reported at The Hill, still can't read the initial article due to paywall and archive links not working for me for some reason.
I mean, yes, in the past, well-known rapists and sexual harassers faced little to no economic and social consequences if they had enough power or popularity to being with, and continued to rape and harass people throughout long and successful careers.
The new way is very far from perfect, and since it's new there's a lot of refinement still needed.
But it is definitely better than the old way.
Of all the new progressive-led 'ways of doing things', are there any examples of one that got 'refined' and dialed down a bit from its prior fervor?
Will this refinement entail not trying to cut off people from their income based on public accusations made under anonymity and that nobody attempted to bring to court?
I mean, basically all of them?
Look at the Black Panthers to MLK, look at the Stonewall Riots to Ellen. It always starts with militancy and fringe extremists bringing an issue to light, and then moderates and respectability politics processing it into something palatable over a decade or three.
The Black Panthers were literally founded after the March on Washington.
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't you basically agreeing with the parent? The extreme elements interact with the mainstream and get some of what they want. The extreme stays extreme, but over time, the mainstream moves further and further to the left, even though they never adopt the extreme policies wholesale.
I don't think so? I though OP was implying that leftist movements never get moderated from the initial extreme agitator incarnations, and I disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I said 'new', as in recent. What does a 'refinement' of #metoo in regards to wrongfully accused men look like? What does a refinement of antiracism in regards to making the OK gesture look like? If we're already admitting that some of this stuff in the zeitgeist has gotten unreasonable in its zeal, what are the 'sane' rollbacks we can all soon expect? And do you honestly expect progressives to acquiesce and go along with them?
I also do not share your take on the historical progressive stances being moderated over time. I would say many of them started moderate, or at least had a prior moderate incarnation it eventually arrived at (gay people are normal folk just like me and you wouldn't even be able to tell, dont judge somebody by their skin) and only got more extreme with their ambitions once they settled in and enjoyed the comfort of their power (drag shows for children, venerating blackness as unique and special).
Perhaps this is the 'refinement' you gesture towards? They've certainly done a magnificent job of grabbing the reigns of media and ensuring their takes are the only acceptable ones. That is a success story, in a way. And yet it does nothing to address any of my concerns with the fundamentals of their arguments and ideologies. I want them turned back, not grandfathered into respectability they'll proceed to exploit.
I think we were more sane and moderate about these things in previous decades, and progressives ruined that. Why should I wait for them to sort themselves out again?
Oh, you mean what refinements have been made to things that are more recent than the timeframe in which refinements happen.
Ok, well, maybe my framing of the question reveals my answer here. But to play along...
People supporting Johnny Depp and Al Franken way more than they did Harvey Weinstein and bill Cosby?
Literally that meme dying out in the course of a few months and no one talking about it anymore?
Yes, that was my thesis statement.
Yeah this is just ahistoric as far as I can tell.
Like, how old were you in the 80s? Do you actually remember the sequence of events? 'Gay people are normal folk and you can't even tell' came after 'It's genetic and we can't help it, pity us instead of persecuting us' which came after drag queens and queer bars rioting in the street and warring with cops.
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