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 -
Which of BLM’s goals did it achieve? Stuff like the bail/justice reform movement long predates BLM and wasn’t the focus, so that doesn’t count.
Diverted uncounted billions of dollars to leftist activism to give sinecures to hordes of useless college graduates, putting fringe "critical theory" activists in charge of university hiring, science funding, and formerly apolitical NGOs with massive endowments and prestige.
I don't know what goals you think they had other than "all power to us, loot the system for our ingroup"
How can people still pretend the institutional takeovers of 2020 just didn't happen?
That’s just institutional leftism, it isn’t BLM in particular. That was a specific movement with goals like “defund the police”.
BLM was the previous vehicle for institutional leftism to take over everything. "Decolonization" is the new one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Got some of those in the 'leadership' positions independently wealthy.
More options
Context Copy link
They got Starbucks locations to act as a public restroom for a few years. Not even that was able to stick.
More options
Context Copy link
Looser sentences was absolutely a key focus of BLM. The fact that those demands predated BLM does not negate the fact. As for achievements? That's another story. But I think the goal for BDS is more tangible since most people don't really care much about Israel one way or another. That's why the Zionist lobby has been successful. It's enough for a small but passionate minority and you can have outsized impact on foreign policy. Domestic policy is trickier.
I agree, Zionism is the default in the US because most people don’t care except (most) Jews and some Evangelicals and this leads to policy by default, unlike issues like abortion and gun control with strong views on both sides. As the Muslim population rises in the West, the constituency strongly ideologically opposed to Israel, who consider opposition to Israel a central religious and moral imperative, grows with it.
That said, the route to BDS’ actual goals (which, most pointedly, include sanctions as a central element) is much harder. Fifty something representatives out of 435 voted against the current Israel aid bill; 20 of those were Republicans protesting the related aid for Ukraine and that some of the money would go to Palestinians (and even the NatCon faction definitely wouldn’t vote to sanction Israel in support of Palestinians, they just wouldn’t vote to send it money). Of the few dozen Dems most just thought Israel went a bit too far in Gaza. The US Muslim population is much smaller than those in major Western European countries per capita, and is highly concentrated in a few house seats. Even countries that have been more skeptical of Israel’s war in Gaza, like China and Russia, don’t sanction Israel. Even many Muslim lands do not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link