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 -
I understand OP's point to be that legal restrictions on Muslims would be seen as objectionable by those people because they would consider is unjust, not as low status. Opposing invidious discrimination against despised minority groups is, after all, a pretty common sentiment among the people in question.
Then the fairness of that policy should be debated separately, not abandoned as a preemptive concession before they agree that the truth is in fact the truth on some other point("get on board with the project"). The "rhetoric" is the problem, you see, not the fact that it's wrong. His use of “linked to” and “right-wing shibboleths” strongly suggest a status/ideological purity motive. He doesn’t want to be “linked to” “right-wing shibboleths”. I mean, who are we kidding here? If even I feel the need to avoid giving off low-status right wing vibes, they assuredly experience a much stronger pull.
OP did not say that they don't want to be linked to right-wing shibboleths. Rather, OP said that potential allies of the project are not going to "get on board" if it is framed in a way which is offensive to their core beliefs, and is instead framed in a way (helping people escape a place where they are subjected to an oppressive ideology) that is instead consistent with those values.
Your suggested strategy (debating the fairness of "hatred and legal restrictions on Muslims") amounts to a suggestion that the way to achieve the goal is to get people to change their basic principles. That is a fool's game, especially when the principles in question (freedom of religion and nondiscrimination) are very much mainstream.
With an attitude like that, societies could never change and correct their mistakes, comrade. Anyway, I’m suspicious of the strategic advice coming from political opponents. Let's just debate the ideas and let me worry about what people will accept.
No one said that has to be the only strategy. There can be short-term and long-term strategies (and if you mean that society should correct its "mistakes" of valuing freedom of religion and freedom from insidious discrimination, that is long-term indeed).
Finally, I don't know what you hope to gain by addressing me as "comrade."
It's just a joke based on the fact that you defended a conservative position while our overall alignments (on the progressive axis) are the opposite, I meant no insult, I did not mean to imply that you are a communist. My true objection, of course, is not that I am a revolutionary who wants to change the core values of the people in an afternoon, but that such consequentialist considerations ("what people will accept") should not intrude upon our search for the truth("let's just debate the ideas").
I actually don't think I was defending a conservative position at all. I, and I believe OP, was commenting on how to effectively pursue political goals. That has nothing to do with right or left; understanding what motivates your opponents is sound strategy regardless of your political orientation.
I think you would recognize it as conservative if it was applied to trans issues. Or perhaps slavery. As to the core values of the people on that particular point, 41 percent of democrats (versus 46 against) supported the muslim ban (source).
I told you what I think motivates progressives here: primarily status concerns and ideological gate-keeping ( as in, their ideology does not allow them to leave the flock on just one issue, all “enemy ideas” are “linked” ). Although the ‘correct-orthodox’ beliefs are justified further down, as you say, by their understanding of fairness.
I don’t understand. An effective strategy is an effective strategy, regardless of whether the goal is conservative or liberal or something else.
Except, it wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a ban (actually, a partial ban) on a handful of countries associated with terrorism.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link