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 -
Can you date folks with different politics?
I watch this stream yesterday and i find it quite interesting. Im actually kinda in this situation now, i took a girl on a date, she made it obvious she was a progressive. I often dont share my own views on these things in real life, due to how toxic these conversations can be, so i just try to listen and empathize with where the person is coming from. Though im planning to open my mouth a little more about things on the 2nd go round, as to not give a misleading representation of who i am.
Whats interesting is that the streamer in question distinct "politics" from "human rights", she gives a pretty weak example with Roe V Wade. However i think the distinction between "politics" and "human rights" is shaky to begin with. No one really agrees on what human rights even are, per her roe example, gun control (constitutional arguably, but still) being another one, & there are still societies/people that arent accepting of LGBT although thats been on the decline over some decades. My guess is she is taking this to mean, "you probably shouldnt date a nazi", which is perfectly fine. But there arent a lot of those guys around in this day and age. For myself, i dont really believe any idea is above criticism, so i dont see how having a different idea of what constitutes human rights is much different from just having different politics.
According to pew research, most people, (myself included) are fine with dating people across the political aisle {note that many people wouldnt date a trump voter, but many would date a republican, but i suspect many people might view trump as a fundamentally immoral individual, and thus that makes him distinct from just mere disagreement}. I also find that peoples political beliefs arent good measures of how moral they are in real life. There are many progressives ive seen who were cheaters, liars, lazy, ect & conservatives who were kind hearted, hard working, & loving ect (& vice versa). But i want to know what you guys think.
I can date someone with different politics as long as their metapolitics are, like mine, geared for cooperation rather than instant defection/conflict. This usually implies they're not too invested in politics in the abstract.
I don't think I would want to date someone who was too politically involved in trying to achieve political changes at levels that are obviously beyond their control.
That is, self-described 'activists' are right out. If they want to show up to a protest and hold a sign I guess that's okay, but devoting substantial time and effort trying to shift political outcomes is where I would draw the line.
So I can most likely tolerate somebody that I differ with politically, as long as we're generally in agreement that National/Federal Politics are a farce and any attempts by us as individuals to influence them are pointless, AND we generally align on the issues that are local enough to effect things we can control.
She could hate Donald Trump and I could think he's alright, as long as both of us know that Donald Trump has very little actual impact on our lives.
In practice, the type of person who even has strong feelings about Donald Trump is also likely to be the type who is overly obsessed with national politics. So having a position on Trump that you're willing to fight over is, itself, grounds for me to back out of any further entanglement. It can be fun to debate about the guy in the abstract, and come to differing opinions, but the second you start taking it too seriously is the second you're too invested in a question that has no importance for your life.
I don't think this is even me taking an 'eNLighTenED CenTriSM' position. I'm literally just looking for someone who isn't so invested in political fights that have no bearing on the relationship we share or our immediate living situation that they don't have energy to spare for the relationship and for the fights that do matter.
Then there's the nuanced positions. Somebody can be vehemently pro-choice and I could be in a relationship with them despite me leaning pro-life, but it would have to be understood that I do want to be consulted on matters pertaining to childbirth within the relationship, as long as she understands that I'd never hold a gun to her head and force her to carry a fetus to term.
Again, I assume people capable of exercising such nuance exist, but they sure ain't as obvious.
Obviously you know yourself better than I can, but this specific position strikes me as dangerous. An unexpected pregnancy can be stressful and values-clarifying in ways that are difficult to anticipate. I would not be at all shocked by one or the other of the two people in the hypothetical relationship you describe radically changing position when confronted with the real, immediate situation (she decides "you get no say, period," or you decide "abortion is a dealbreaker, do it and I'm out," for instance). I'm not even suggesting bad faith! Just that a truly accidental bait and switch can happen, and abortion is the perfect storm for that type of accident.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link