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 -
This doesn't concern "where do you draw the line," but one aspect of what I consider "cancel culture" is diffusion of responsibility.
The people who actually dish out the consequences can claim they're doing so not out of personal judgment, but instead in response to others who hold some power over them (or at least, that's what they can claim if they get challenged about the case,) so it's really Not Their Fault. The people who are agitating for the cancellation, by contrast, can claim to be powerless nobodies if they are challenged, and so it's really Not Their Fault, either. Ultimately, fingers end up pointing into a completely indefinite mob, and so there's nobody who can be dealt with who claims to have power and opinions at the same time.
For example, suppose Suey Park's campaign were more successful. (As far as I remember it, that's where the "cancellation" term gained this use.) "Sorry," some Comedy Central executive could say to Stephen Colbert as he delivers the news that The Colbert Report is canceled for anti-Asian racism, "it's nothing personal. I'm just acting in the best interests of the network, because if I don't cancel your show, the advertisers will boycott us."
Ask an advertiser about it and they also might say "we also aren't acting out of any non-fiduciary motives: if we don't boycott the network unless the show is canceled, the public will boycott us."
"Who, me?" Says an agitator on Twitter, "I'm just a random private citizen! I can't possibly do anything to the great and powerful by myself. How dare you pick on me!" (In conversations more positive about the whole thing, though, they may freely crow about having claimed such a prize.)
Ultimately, all responsibility is ascribed to "public opinion," and the fact that there's a long chain from "agitation on Twitter" to "somebody gets fired" means that the whole process very rarely gets to the level of popular boycotts. (And there's another link at the end of the chain, after "somebody gets fired," which is the most important of all: people self-censor to avoid getting fired. The chilling effect is the prime weapon here.) The mere specter of popular action is enough to get managers or executives or advertisers or employees to proactively take these steps themselves.
Or, at least, that's how the story goes. I think it's often a lie, and the specter of popular action is not the main motive for all these proactive steps; it's just a cover story for contentious actions that agents wanted to take already but want to dodge responsibility for (including chilling-effecting out views that differ from their own.) Otherwise we'd see much less of a political tilt to the offenses that it's feared could produce popular action: the Bud Light incident at latest should have convinced management nationwide to avoid doing anything to offend the right, as well as the left, to the extent that story is true. (And that extent is? Well, more than zero, but I don't see a whole lot.)
But this "diffusion of responsibility" criterion also means I need to defend Nathan Robinson.
As I recall, Nathan Robinson was (basically) fired from Guardian US by his editor for his anti-Israel opinions. He had been known before for taking the position that "cancel culture isn't real," and, in response to his opponents' chortling, said that what he went through still wasn't cancel culture.
If what I recall is accurate, I agree that his case was not. At least, it wasn't Cancel Culture. It was something much simpler: he offended a specific, single individual with power over him who used that power. If someone challenged John Mulholland about the case of Nathan Robinson's firing, my understanding is that he would (and maybe did) defend his actions rather than claim that his hands were tied.
Though here's the point where somebody with a better memory chimes in to say "no, actually, he used those exact words."Regardless of this example, I think it's worth noting the difference between culture-war disputes fought openly, by people who will admit to what they're doing, and ones where the victory is sought by stealth.More options
Context Copy link