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 -
No, I said I don't:
"I do [see a reason not to take them at their word]. The issues of the late 18th century..."
Because you seem to think it does and are making inferences based off that. Otherwise why bring up the idea that I'm a progressive?
Perhaps it would help if you could clarify what you mean when you say "progressive".
Could be. Could be a story they tell themselves to feel better about swinging right. Could be they were always kind of right-wing but didn't like to think of themselves that way and the low salience of their views meant that self-perception never got challenged. Contra Moldbug, political currents move in all directions.
Context and judgment.
I'm not sure how you get from here to there.
This is true but has nothing to do with the contemporary progressive movement as opposed to just human nature. Look no further than the libertarian -> nrx pipeline if you need an example of old ideas being revived. There is no magic wand that will perpetually banish an idea to the dustbin of history.
On the contrary. Understanding that motion is relative is extremely useful, whereas collapsing the distinction between hundreds of years of political philosophy is obfuscatory.
Oh, I completely misread that, thanks for explaining.
I don't think I anything I said relies on your views as an individual, or even getting general progressive beliefs right.
I use it as a noninflammatory catch-all term for left leaning people analyzing society through lenses of identity and privilege.
That argument was irrelevant to anyone swinging right. You were talking about past positions no longer counting as left wing, if this is what happened, it's everyone else that swung left.
That's not enough to dismiss someone out of hand, or call them full of shit, when they say they've been left behind.
It's pretty straight forward. If not keeping up with change is what gets you booted from the movement, than it's change that is the actual principle, rather than anything being professed in the moment.
The difference is that you correctly identify it as a pipeline - something with the function of moving stuff from one end to the other. You're not claiming that actually libertarianism is about bending the knee to the One True King, and that the left behind ancap that refuses must actually be a communist, even if he won't admit it to himself.
Oh, I suppose you're right, if you reframe people who keep their old opinions as moving, and your changing opinions as remaining stationary, you never have to ask yourself "am I going too far?". In that sense it's very useful.
Well, first of all, I wasn't discussing a timespan of hundreds of years. We were talking about 10 years or therabouts, and even that doesn't give justice to how sudden it was, because the change in question was very front loaded.
Secondly, I'm not collapsing anything. My approach allows just fine for describing the various ideological changes we went through. It's quote a bit more precise than just calling whatever is currently happening "liberalism".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link