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 -
Yes, another top level comment about The Origins of Woke from me, in the same thread on the same week. But this is about something else. I had an epiphany while reading the book.
I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust. It's because companies are (de facto) legally required to fire racists, but they're not required to fire Marxists. In fact, firing a Marxist for merely being Marxist would be illegal in California.
California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore, who was fired in compliance with the law against creating a hostile work environment for protected groups.
It all adds up.
So you think that if open Marxists were fired - or racism became a protected political belief - the two would equalise or outright invert in status/acceptability? This doesn't explain why intellectual elites in the West leaned Marxist since well before any sort of social sanction against racism materialised, or why right-coded beliefs (Gun rights? Car culture? Millenarian Christianity?) are low-status in the US even when they have no obvious connection to anything giving legal cause for termination or themselves protected.
I think the explanation is much simpler: the utopian end point of racism registers as evil against mainstream Western morality, while the utopian end point of Marxism registers as good. Doing evil for the sake of evil is just evil, but doing evil for the sake of good is at most misguided and tragic. You can dispute any of these judgments, but holding out for the One Weird Trick (abolishing workplace civil rights regulation) to let you skip the hard work of persuading people to change their moral calculus does not seem to serve much of a purpose.
This is a wonderfully pithy explanation. And what you say applies not just to contemporary Western morality, but to American morality from its founding. America was always a forward-looking country - a new society, a better society, a society that smiled on all men in their individual pursuits of happiness. Racialists always sought to portray their policies as being consistent with this goal - slaveowners, for example, argued that slavery was not a barbaric form of mistreatement, but a necessary process of education for the African race, and and nativists argued that immigrants were genetically incapable of learning self-government. But racialists ultimately lost, because they could not convince society that these arguments were factually correct. Not many believed that being a slave was the best way to learn. And genetic ability was (and still is) impossible to measure.
Racialists also sought argued for slavery on the grounds of material interest, and immigration restriction on simple mistrust of the other. Unlike the arguments mentioned above, these arguments have the advantage of being factually true. But ultimately they failed as well, because they were too pessimistic. Americans wanted to believe that all men could achieve prosperity, that there was no need for some men to subjugate others, and that men from all parts of the world could be assimilated and taught the American way of life.
So on one hand, Marxism is totally incompatible with the American way of life, in that it is collectivist and statist, which is why the majority has rejected it. But there has been a sizable minority, overrepresented in positions of power, who are sympathetic to Marxism because it is consistent with American optimism - the belief that we really can build a better society in which the ever-present defects of human societies can be eliminated.
Please consider this response to consist of the shortest acceptable and most polite way to plainly speak my truth of: 'Demonstrably horseshit. You are wrong. I won't go so far as to accuse you of lying but you are clearly pursuing a different agenda than the people you are so radically misrepresenting'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
This post and this one are unnecessarily antagonistic, and we're particularly not fond of this type of post where you basically say "I know the rules don't allow me to call you a lying liar, but I really want you to understand that if I were allowed to call you a lying liar I'd be calling you a lying liar right now."
Disagree with people without testing the boundaries of how insulting you can get away with being.
And if I had said that I would understand your point. But what I said was 'please consider this...the shortest acceptable...way to speak my truth...I won't...accuse you of lying but you are clearly pursuing a different agenda...'
That wasn't insulting or 'testing boundaries' - that was speaking plainly while respecting boundaries. Sometimes people say things that aren't true for all kinds of reasons. Having a rule against saying 'I don't believe you' is good for encouraging productive exchanges. But you're enforcing a rule you just made up against pointing out even the possibility of disingenuity, which would only be good for encouraging people to be disingenuous.
As for the other comment (for reference: "Double posting but your response seemed to be, frankly, in bad faith. By all means put up a quote from a prominent early 20th century socialist that purports it's a magnetic force for every lugnut, troglodyte, hardheaded, menial laboring, 9 to 5, factory man in England or at least some data on party registration by demography. "But ackshually it was working class" has negative probative value. Better not to have responded at all.")
Please, and I'm asking sincerely, explain what about this comment was antagonistic, much less unnecessarily so. "But ackshually" wasn't loving but is a widely known enough meme to reasonably be considered playful. And whether I was responding to a comment that was completely true or completely false - it was completely unsupported by evidence. "Everyone knows you're wrong because most communists were working class" was a contribution with negative probative value and it would have been better not to respond at all. I'm still eager to hear how my response was antagonistic (especially 'unnecessarily'?) - and the fact the other guy 'broke the rules' doesn't mean I didn't - but there are quite explicitly rules about low-effort participation, providing evidence, assuming consensus, and writing like everyone is reading. The undermining of the legitimate authority of those rules by my interlocutor was the premise of my response.
NB The guy did go on to provide some interesting sources that I'm still enjoying and others now can as well. So frankly your intervention wasn't just untimely it's trying to fix something that wasn't broke.
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