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 -
The overlying question surrounding Hlynka's hypothesis is "does the reasoning matter if the end result is the same?" and can be applied to many horseshoe arguments made - be it segregation, racism, economics theory, etc.
There probably needs to be continuing questioning along the lines of "if you could press a button and both sides would immediately ceasefire, would you?". For example, I think an alt right person probably would choose continuing conflict to instead of any sort of peace or cease fire, while a far left person would probably support any sort of ceasefire, even if they perceive the opponent as 'evil'.
Well, it seems you sympathize with the far left by potraying them as people supporting a ceasefire. This is part of the problem of this horseshoe framing. The establishment is today comprised to a significant part by the far left. The assault in the culture war is mainly made by sides that fit with establishment. It is false that this establishment is accepting a ceasefire, to the contrary the opposition being false and full of appeasers have not appeased them to stop. So commonly we get far leftists talk about moderates winning. Which moderates? The reality is rather than the threat of the far right boogieman, people who falsely like to see themselves as moderates have abadoned so much right wing and moderate and reasonable ground that they associated themselves with far right extremism, that they joined sufficiently the other extreme. If a horseshoe exists, they are part of it, and not the people in the middle which encompasses more than that but also encompasses politically incorrect views associated with far right extremsim. Precisely because the left wing framing has been adopted.
Its people afraid of being called names, and being considered right wing extremists who fail to have an even handed position on these issues but adopt a position biased on the identity left wing direction.
Reasonable right wingers wouldn't choose cease fire because the current status quo represents a victory for the far left and also is not a stable status quo but part of its dna are changes bringing things further left direction, although in a manner that can prove unstable for the left and its identities based alliance/coalition. I would argue even moderates wouldn't.
Also, "ceasefire" is a totalitarian anti democratic anti political notion that is greatly destructive to society and a rather extreme way to base society about. The point of politics is retaining what is good and changing what is bad. Of course it is convenient to frame the right existing and trying to change things as making war and refusing to make peace, but this isn't a fair way to analyze politics. It is a way to justify the left dominating since they are so magnanimous they are willing to make peace with the right but the right is unwilling.
When I say this is a totalitarian notion, I am not kidding by the way. Hlynka's way of thinking too directly leads to authoritarianism to enforce collectivism of individualism and disallow his outgroups to express politically what he finds disgusting. I am not against enforcing an overton window but we need to be careful to allow plenty of freedom and choose one that works. Hlynka's overton window is one rather far to the left and much more dangerous and extreme than how politics operate in much of the world.
In many ways he shares ground with the agenda of the establishment in various western countries. Obsession about disallowing native identity sentiment is in line with the agenda of left and it isn't part of moderation. And in practice as it expressed it targets the left's outgroups as threatening with much more fervor than other groups.
The left motte and baily would be at the moment looking for a ceasefire but in reality wanting Palestinians to destroy Israel for some reason. I believe I agree your notion that the 'far left' and the 'establishment' are so intermingled it's hard to separate the real ideas of the two as they often align for whatever political motivation they push the Overton window.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link