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 -
As does the accusation of condescension when none was intended... which is ironically demonstrative of part of the discussion, of the difference between perception by a victim and the purpose by a perpetrator.
I do appreciate the appreciation, and do wish to be clear that I appreciate your participation (in this discussion and in the forum more generally) as well.
The disagreement isn't on your broader point on the relevance of political violence to fear, but rather the timing of what lynching's 'peak era' is, and thus it's applicability to other times and places. This is where we get to anachronisms, the disparities between perceptions (especially politically-resonant perceptions more than a half-century after the facts) and realities, the conflations of different sorts of actions, and so on. I remain focused on lynchings and not other forms of violence not because other forms of violence weren't prevelant, but because they were even as lynching was not come the mid-century as it- far too belatedly- followed the trend of white lynchings by a quarter of a century. The socio-political dynamics of lynchings, as a specific sort of crime and cultural norm, are separate from other forms of racial discrimination and violence of the eras. I do not find them equivalent and interchangeable, for the same reasons I do not find other categories of crimes with different severities and political dynamics equivalent.
For a meta context, this is a more general tendency of mine as well. I tend towards disliking these conflations of events and purposes across decades and different actors in different contexts well, unless there is a generally strong continuity of points to justify the comparisons. I find it unhealthy for civil discussions (where historic grievances are re-raised and conflated with domestic disputes in innaccurate ways) and for understanding situations and histories that are often highly emotive in the present.
And that ending is something I flatly disagree on. I'd even go so far as to say it's an out-group characterization of group-first loyalties by a principles-first alignment (as in, you value principles more than abstract group loyalty), and I say that as someone who prefers principle-first approaches to justice issues over tribalism. I take a position that when people prioritize groupings over values, it doesn not mean they suddenly adopt/identify with the values of the abberant members of the group- that would counter the premise of group-first overriding principles-first cultures, which is reflecting of trying to impose a principles-first paradigm on people who don't share it.
I fully agree that they identified with the murderers, yes, but identify with the motives, I disagree on. I disagree it was about saving the in-group's face, rather than defying the out-group, and I maintain that this distinction matters more than any commonality of the perpetrators motives across the grouping. This is without even discussing practicalities in specific contexts, such as key actor analysis of specific cases. This is a disagreement on social dynamics assessments, of group identities versus principles, which seems foundational enough that I doubt we will reconcile to a common position or characterization of what the dominant truth/factor in characterizing the situation is.
Since I suspect we'll just revolve around this well past the thread's expiration date, especially if foundational positions are divergent, I'll freely (and sincerely) offer you a last position point if you'd like, with a respect departure of ways.
Have a good day and week and rest of the year!
More options
Context Copy link