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 -
One thing I’ve found interesting is a couple of responses in the "mainstream media." First, this AP piece, which was introduced on Twitter with:
(I once again thank Elon for the gift that is community notes)
From the piece itself:
That same “Republicans pounce” tone carries throughout. Little to no concern as to whether the accusations are true — even as they do note it is the sort of thing that would absolutely not be tolerated from an undergrad:
Instead, who is making the accusation is treated as what really matters. It’s very tribalist.
Another paragraph that stood out:
Note the historically backwards framing at the end there, in service of a tortured guilt-by-association-to-metaphor.
Also, an “everybody does it” defense, combined with a further assertion that accusations shouldn’t count if they come from The Wrong People™ who think “everybody does it”:
Next:
Would an undergrad get away with plagiarism if it was “an honest mistake”? Well, I went to Caltech, not Harvard, but the way the “honor code” was enforced vis-a-vis plagiarism and proper citations when I was there two decades ago, the answer was no.
I’m trying not to be “boo outgroup” here about mainstream “journalism,” but this all seems pretty partisan for something from an institution like the Associated Press that purports to be reporting rather than editorializing.
The other is this Forbes piece: “Claudine Gay Resigns From Harvard: Why Black Excellence Is Never Enough.” Exactly what “black excellence” Dr. Gay displayed, beyond being “Harvard University’s first Black president” is left unsaid. The author’s other two examples for comparison are Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Nikole Hannah-Jones. The fourth paragraph is what I’d like to highlight, particularly its end:
Note the “harms” Gay, Hannah-Jones, and Jackson suffered: Gay had to step down from being president of Harvard, but still works there in a highly-paid position; UNC initially denied Hannah-Jones tenure… before eventually granting it; and Justice Jackson… received criticism during her Senate confirmation hearing. That last is particularly notable — Jackson was confirmed. She’s on the Supreme Court.
The author, Janice Gassam Asare, seems to be offended that these women received pushback and criticism at all, and that these women — all quite well off and protected and very safe compared to most Americans of any color — aren’t even better off is proof that “misogynoir is never too far away.”
Again, the substance of the issue is waved away, in favor of making it about “the first Black woman [X].” Where in the first piece, truth comes second to partisan affinities, here truth is second to identities. In both, the focus is shifted away from Dr. Gay’s questionable scholarship, in favor of painting the outgroup as horrible for daring to point it out. How are things supposed to work, in a media environment like this?
More options
Context Copy link