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 -
When I read their list of grievous acts by the King it seemed to me like the argument they were actually making was that the king was in fact being so odious that they had a duty under the law to rebel, and they considered themselves to be bound by the law even as they were in the midst of rebelling against the king. But while this argument could continue along these lines, I freely admit to not knowing enough about the situation to draw a firm conclusion either way. Maybe there's a lot of subtext I'm just not getting, or maybe I'm misinterpreting their writing. If you want me to actually provide a real debate on this point I'd have to do a lot of homework (I'm not American, this shit wasn't taught in my history classes).
But rather than that, I'd prefer to go back to the central point. To clarify, I'd like to state that I made my original point in the context of migrants moving to one country and then working to make it more like the country they came from in direct opposition to the wills of the majority. The various hypotheticals presented have different confounding factors, and hence deserve different responses.
Colonists rebelling? Given that from my understanding of their stated perspective the deal was changed on them in a way they had not agreed to beforehand, complaining is perfectly justified.
Moving to a tyrant's country and then joining the resistance movement? You are knowingly taking on the problem and don't get to complain about it because you knew what you were getting into.
Moving to a country and discovering it is a tyranny after it is too late? You were deceived, and there's no problem complaining because you did not in fact know what you were getting into.
Buying a house that's cheap due to low flying planes and then complaining about low flying planes? See the asshole post I made earlier.
Moving to a country because of how much better it is than yours, then complaining that it is also different in ways that materially contribute to that "betterness"? Again, you knew what you were signing up for, and the precise complaints matter as well - there's a big difference between "Actually this traditional lead-based plumbing system is bad for everyone and here's why" and "My people should be allowed to continue our tradition of slavery in your western democracy".
The main point being made is that if you know about something and voluntarily invite it upon yourself, most people are going to take a dim view of your complaining about it. If you vote for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party, people on the Motte are going to make fun of you rather than sympathise with you when you complain about what happened to your face.
So you do accept you can make some complaints, and want SOME changes. Which means we basically agree, I think. My point is saying you can't try and make ANY change at all is a terrible rule.
The issue with our version of course it there is no objective standard. You think I can try and campaign for lead pipes being phased out, (even though I presumably knew about the lead pipes before moving because that is good for everyone, but not for re-introducing slavery, because that is bad). Great, I would agree with those choices. Where things get trickier is everywhere in between. If I think abortion is worse than lead pipes do I get to campaign for abortion to be made illegal in the US? If I think State and Religion being separate is a bad thing do I get to campaign for that to be changed in my new country? Is this complicated if there are "natives" who are also campaigning for those same things? Can I vote for a "native" politician who wants to ban abortion or does that count as trying to change the country I am supposed to accept?
I think HylnkaCG's rule of having to accept anything because you agreed to it when you moved in, is clearly not a great rule (and your lead pipes example is a good counter-example actually). But I also understand that means there is no objective stopping point, and that it's tricky to work out what they should be allowed to mess with and what they shouldn't. What exactly is the American culture they are not allowed to mess with, given that Americans themselves don't always agree? Even the answer, you can try to change whatever the native populace allows you to try and change has holes in it, as the native populace is not likely to be in 100% agreement themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link