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 have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.
And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence. Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?
Normally I wouldn't do it, since I find these sort of requests disingenuous, but since you insist the above is a valid approach, can you please link the evidence that the same people objecting to how Romney was treated are the same people who have expressed a problem with black people?
That doesn't mean your demands for rigor is in any way balanced.
Of course, evidence is just one of the factors that shapes my beliefs. I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.
Perhaps, that is a red herring. The issue is whether it is unhealthy to base belefs on a complete lack of evidence, or on things that purport to be evidence, but are not.
I don't think I every met anyone who did the former, and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another. Arguable the latter is even a good reason to not base your beliefs solely on evidence.
That doesn't make it ok, and the proper response when someone points out that one has fallen victim thereto is thanks.
So how come you haven't thanked me for pointing out what you considered to be evidence that some of the people complaining about Romney's treatment actually have a problem with Obama's skin color, is not evidence of that?
Because that is not what you said, and if you meant to imply that, you are mistaken; as I explained, there is indeed evidence for my statement. That does not, of course, mean that the statement is necessarily correct. But it is consistent with the evidence.
Then produce the freakin' evidence. I'm one of the "most of the people complaining" about how Romney was treated by both traditional and social media, and thus you are including me in the set of those who "are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person".
So if you're going to imply, intimate, or otherwise Hint Darkly that I'm anti-Obama, anti-Obama because he is black, and anti-black people hence a racist, I want Your. Goddamn. Evidence. Clear. And. Plain.
If you're backing out because you don't want to name names such as "X, Y and Z have expressed racist opinions", then you are well aware you are breaking forum rules. If you're backing out because you have no names, just 'my general impression of this site', then buzz on over to Sneerclub if that place is still up and running.
Dude, if you think "some of those people" refers to you specifically, that's on you.
Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.
Now, OP noted that many people here seem to be very exorcised about Romney, and only Romney, supposedly being treated unfairly during the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign, despite the fact that they don't seem to be particularly enamored of Romney himself. It stands to reason, therefore, that they might be less upset that Romney lost than that Obama won. Now, there are many reasons why one might be opposed to Obama being reelected, but for those people here who display anti-black animus, one would have to willfully ignore human nature not to hypothesize that his race might be a factor. Which, again, does not make them bad people. After all, 100 years ago, most people were far more racist than that, but most people 100 years ago were not bad people; I assume that they were on average just as bad or good as people today.
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