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 -
Crazy? No. But it is entirely possible to "serve the needs of all District 3 residents" while "working towards justice" for specific groups. For example, it is certainly possible that some groups have been the victims of injustice, and hence have a need for greater justice, and some groups have not. So, no, the two statements are not logically inconsistent. [NOTE: If history is any guide, there will be people who might be tempted to comment re whether the groups listed by the candidate, as well as those omitted, are or are not the victims of injustice. Please don't, because I am not expressing an opinion on that. I am merely pointing out that the OP errs when he says that the two statements are necessarily inconsistent].
Well, first, they don't read it the same way you do. Second, and more importantly, why did I vote for a property tax increase to fund new athletic facilities at local schools? I don't use them, and don't have kids in school. Why did white people support the Civil Rights Movement? Whites were not the victims of Jim Crow. Why would I support a candidate who pledges to never waterboard suspected terrorists, over one who explicitly pledges to do the opposite, but cut my taxes? I am very, very, very unlikely ever to be taken for a terrorist, but I certainly pay taxes every year.
The fact is, principles do matter to people. Not to every person, certainly, and they do not always trump other interests, but they do matter. So, no, contrary to what others have said, it is not all signaling.
I suggest taking a look at the section at the beginning of this paper on value rationality and what motivates suicide bombers and the like. A key quote:
What does prove exactly? People are capable of being wrong, me and you included. Nothing in nature stops humans from hitching their wagon to a wrong horse, and then rationalizing it.
Given that in 2020 POTUS election, 87% of African Americans vote for the perceived to be more pro-African American candidate, but only 58% of European Americans for the perceived to be more pro-European American candidate, not to all races equally.
I don't understand your point at all. The point is not that a vote is "right" or "wrong." If you think my vote was "wrong" and I think it is "right," it simply means that you value different things than I do. And THAT IS THE POINT: That is why those white voters are supporting the candidate, and the OP is not.
That is a very odd argument to make, given that in the primaries, those same African American voters overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden over Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, not to mention more left candidates like Sanders and Warren.
Is there some principle espoused by Donald Trump, or by the Republican Party in general, that is supposed to be a basis for voting for them? What principle to you contend African Americans are ignoring when they vote for the Democratic Party?
You are assuming that the benefits which flow to European Americans from electing a "more pro-European American" candidate are commensurate to those which flow to African Americans from electing a "more pro-African American" candidate. As a European American, I can't think of any benefits that would flow to me from electing a more "pro-European American" candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link