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 Illegitimacy of Power
In the beginning, the world was just, populated by true equals. Injustice was born when a Will first imposed itself upon another. How? Power. Is it possible to learn this “Power”? Not from the Good. Might makes wrong. Might as well submit, and take your righteous place in the great chain of...
The Interlocking Wills
With Power, the original Will comes down from above, and as it passes through inert Wills, is transmitted losslessly to the bottom . An ukrainian supports war on his government’s orders, itself a vassal of the EU, itself a vassal of the US, itself controlled by the CIA, the telephone company, boomers, elites, jews, rich cishet whites, billionaires, english royalty, the NWO, or you-shall-name-and-blame-it. Whoever He is, we are all NPCs in the Prime Mover’s single-player game. His shadowy Will reigns supreme. Fear not and rejoice, for it means we are...
The Bloodstained Innocents
We have no agency, pure victims even as we victimize. Our crimes are His crimes. Passing them down the chain, and guilt up the chain, we are a perfect conduit of power. Can’t victim-blame the helpless oppressed. As absolute power corrupts Him absolutely, utter lack of it frees us from corruption. Free to dance and sing and reach for...
The Clouds Above
All our ideas are at best irrelevant, at worst another manifestation of His Will. As we are powerless, it appears he manipulates us through media and everything else for the hell of it. Or an epiphenomenom, the illusory superstructure rising from the base like a cloud of smoke.
edit: I do not believe any of this.
It doesn't matter that free will doesn't exist, you have to act as if it does anyway.
Alright, no one is getting it, my bad, failure to communicate, I’m adding an edit. I suspect people agree too much with the parody, so the underlying criticism creates an uncanny valley or something.
I figured it was parody when you said in the beginning the world was just because everyone was equal, but I thought you were looking for responses in the same pithy quasi-religious style. What kind of responses were you hoping for?
I expected alt-righters to find the flaws in the reductio ad absurdum and explain how their ideology is totally different from similar woke theories. More progressive posters, if they still exist, to do the opposite. And guys like igi and me to argue and laugh at the spat.
But I think I once again underestimated how widespread those wokish-postmodern ideas have become on here. They don’t feel the need to defend them anymore, they just downvote and move on (ITT company excluded). I think they really do believe a version of this caricature.
Alternatively, you posted a lazy, low-effort caricature of what you think others believe, in direct violation of several of the sidebar rules, and people here object to that sort of behavior.
I thought it was neat, and zeroed in on a deep disagreement between the factions, but the Popular Will evidently disagrees. Am I not allowed to present my interpretation of where their ideas lead to? I thought it was identifiable as a criticism, but even if it wasn't, I quickly corrected the misunderstanding.
I don’t know why you bother responding to me if you’re trying to get me banned for insufficiently docile contradiction of rightism like so many before me.
Can you name someone who is willing to say that you have accurately described their own thinking? If not, you haven't zeroed in on a disagreement between the factions, you've generated a strawman.
I'm not trying to get you banned. I'm not a mod, and I have not reported you to the actual mods. I'm pointing out that you are engaging in behavior that will get you banned by the mods if you keep it up. I'm doing this because I want our conversations to be able to continue, and if you get banned that won't happen.
Docility has nothing to do with it. You can rain hellfire on people here, and there is no restriction on who you do it to, provided you do it the right way. One of the reasons my replies to you contain so many question marks is because I don't believe I understand your position well enough to explain it to you in my own language, and have you agree that the explanation is accurate. That's the gold standard this community runs on, and you often don't appear to even be trying to meet it.
If I say "progressives hate freedom and want more dead black people", I will get modded, because that is an inflammatory claim made without evidence. If I say "progressive ideology constantly finds itself in conflict with our essential freedom, here's why and here's some examples to prove the point, and progressive policies claim to protect black people but actually get a lot of them killed, as proved by these events and those statistics", I will not get modded, even though the two statements are pretty similar in their conclusions. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
Speak of The Law, and it will appear. I don’t think this is even close to rule-breaking.
If I left out the ‘interlocking wills’ part and presented it strictly as a standard attack on the woke ('them' instead of including the reader in the criticism with 'we' , made the bloodstained innocents the oppressed bipoc minorities, and hypoagency an exclusively feminist/female concept), you wouldn’t be lecturing me on mottiquette, and I’d be upvoted.
Tough standard, don't you think? The woke don't like to be called woke, it's called 'basic decency'.
The standard response to a strawman would be to deny that people hold the view, not agree that people (soldiers and bakers) have no agency, that orders should be followed , ‘this is how the world tends to work’, and ‘evil people are actually running the thing’.
The only ‘strawman’ objection to my characterization was “Just following orders is not accepted as an excuse” , and that was heavily criticized.
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