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 -
She also doesn't mention Asian people. I think you're reading too much into this. This is standard issue woke signaling, not a serious indication she can't/won't represent the needs of white people. I certainly wouldn't vote for her because I find this sort of thing maximally obnoxious, but I think that your interpretation here is off base.
Doesn't woke signaling indicate that she won't represent the straight and white except her close family and associates?
I don't think so, no. It means white people should expect to be a rhetorical punching bag, and it means they won't ever get prioritized by her, but I don't think it means that their needs won't ever be represented at all. I realize I'm kind of splitting hairs here, but that's how it strikes me at least.
Isn't being demonized and being in the bottom of the totem pole mean being unrepresented (and even being openly antagonized)? after all, it's not like there will be a moment in time when there isn't something than a prioritized group will want/need, that she can point to and use as an excuse for why she doesn't attend to the white devils needs?.
Functionally it looks to me as the same as being unrepresented, but with a dangling carrot forever out of reach.
I don't think it is. For example, if a white constituent approached her with concerns, I don't think she would summarily ignore them because that person is white. She may choose to prioritize other constituents above them, but that's something all representatives have to decide on how to prioritize.
I certainly think it would be fair to say that white citizens are being poorly represented, but I don't think it would be accurate to say they aren't being represented at all.
If this is the standard, it seems like every politician in the US can be said to represent all races, genders, sexuality, etc. I posit that being poorly represented, i.e. one's interest deprioritized based purely on one's race (or gender or sexuality or etc), is sufficiently close to being unrepresented in this particular context that you really can't split that hair.
I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I don't think that such counts as being unrepresented, but I also have no arguments to make beyond what I've already said.
OK, I'm genuinely curious then: if, say, during pre-Civil Rights America some black constituents complained to their mayor about the segregation at the public pool and the mayor decided to prioritize his white constituents' desires not to interact with blacks over the black constituents' desires to use those pool facilities, then black constituents have no grounds to complain that the mayor is not representing black constituents? It seems that, from your posts here, that by your lights, the answer is absolutely Yes, there is no way to state that this mayor is being unrepresentative of black constituents, only that he's poorly representing them. Which then would raise the question: what is the meaningful difference, by your lights, between being unrepresented and being poorly represented, where the rubber meets the road, i.e. actual impactful policy changes implemented by those in power?
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