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 -
It's definitely a hard question to answer, in no small part because of how there's no standard definition of what counts as "left," and how "left," "liberal," and "progressive" get conflated. When I look at the values that tend to get associated with such groups, I see values that I support today as much as ever - e.g. sympathy and support for the least well-off in society for "left," freedom of speech for "liberal," and changing the structure of society to get "better" in some meaningful way (i.e. for it to "progress" rather than merely "change") for people who used to be ignored or denigrated for "progressive."
Where I see myself departing greatly from the modern left - besides the fact that they largely just reject the principles of liberalism - is the willingness to check that claims are true and that policies really do create desired outcomes. E.g. the whole WPATH situation seems to be the result of people just deciding not to check what would actually lead to the best outcomes for kids who claim to be trans and just going along with people who are sympathetic and sound like they know what they're talking about. To achieve anything good in this world requires some level of brutal honesty about the reality of the situation, and I just don't see that happening.
And this is one insight that I think right-wingers of yesteryear had when I was poo-pooing their claims of "slippery slope" (I too admit that I have egg on my face on this, for whatever little it's worth) that I lacked. They understood the psychology of self-proclaimed leftists/liberals/progressives than I did. Perhaps unsurprising, because I'm not known for understanding the way others think, but I would have thought back then that as a leftist/liberal/progressive, that I understood their thinking better than their enemies would. They understood that the left/liberal alliance was largely one of convenience, and that liberalism would go out the window if the opportunity presented itself to most of those identifying on the left. That's what they were warning me about, and I was pushing back using basic philosophical/logical arguments instead of recognizing the way the landscape was shaped. Often, when someone is proven wrong, it's not that hard to reach for excuses for why it was reasonable to be wrong at the time or how this thing doesn't actually prove oneself wrong, as a way to save face, but in this one, I don't see any way around just completely submitting to any "I told you so"s that anyone might want to throw at me.
More options
Context Copy link