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 wasn't taking a position on the "billions in foreign aid" line, any more than I am taking a position on the "apartheid state" line. (I'll talk about my own personal thoughts about Israel if you think they matter, but I don't think they do.) I've been more or less neutral because my entire point is that both sides tend to use a motte-and-bailey. Amusingly, you went right for the motte of your side while accusing the other side of standing in the bailey.
(To clarify, when I said "is it coming from the kneejerk leftist impulse to defend oppressed POC against a country receiving billions in foreign aid from the US," although I did not use quote marks, I was referring to said impulse and the line that typically accompanies it, not asserting myself that this is an accurate description.)
Yes, and I didn't mean to imply that you are taking the position. It's a very illustrative example that you provided, and I was working off it. (perhaps too passionately, though)
Was it "The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is anti-Semitism"? Because I'm talking about the exceptional focus on Israel coming directly from anti-Semites, leading to this very discussion.
I don't see it. I'd love for you to expand on that, because it seems to me like my argument is pretty clear and bailey-less, as it were.
Your motte is pretty much as I stated initially, that there are "reasonable" criticisms of Israel allowed (just none that will actually be accepted as reasonable when expressed), while the bailey is where you fell back to arguing that the ultimate source of all such arguments is Protocols-spouting ZOG believers.
I’m not arguing the supposed motte at all. I’m only arguing what you labeled the bailey. I also don’t understand how one can fall back to the bailey, that’s the opposite direction from retreat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link