site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Even the 2004 election, largely viewed as a referendum on the war at the time, didn't really have any war-related policy angle. John Kerry had no plans on withdrawing and didn't claim that he did. He claimed that it was a mistake in retrospect but that didn't translate into any concrete proposals.

The general, but the Democratic primaries were dominated by the question. Howard Dean's raison d'etre was opposition to the war.

In the end, though, the majority of Democrats shrugged, and John Kerry got the nomination. And his position was, at best, muddled, sometimes calling for withdrawal early in the new term, sometimes suggesting increased troop presence. (You actually can come up with a coherent statement of his position beyond "Bush bad," but it's clearly synthetic and mostly because he was very reticent when it came to committing to any particular concrete policy.) And, in fairness to the politics at the time, him adopting a strong anti-war stance would have probably lost him votes; his issue was waffling badly, not waffling itself.

Most of the people who would fervently denounce the war later were denouncing it before it even started.

Yep, that's me. And to add a bit of color, although I would tactically deploy arguments about WMD when convenient, in all honesty I didn't give a shit: finding anything short of a nuke wouldn't have phased me, and even with a nuke I would have probably just gone quiet for a month. I still think that's the correct perspective, but the matter of WMD was just a pretextual battlefield for the larger question of whether the war on Iraq was good or bad. And I'm pretty sure that's not unique to me.

finding anything short of a nuke wouldn't have phased me

You mean "fazed". The way you spelled it is a hypercorrection.

Good catch, appreciated.