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 -
How exactly would you propose distinguishing between "genuine" beliefs and performative ones? Why wouldn't they lead to similar kinds of behavior? Is there a chance that performative beliefs may result in even more extreme actions than genuine ones?
And I'll point that even and maybe especially "genuine" beliefs are not free of contradiction or inconsistency and are not necessarily rooted in philosophical or moral reasoning.
I appreciate the dozen different irrelevant counter claims or suggestions that the opposite may be true, but I think this all demonstrates why accusing random strangers' actions of being performative is just a boo-outgroup exercise.
They aren't irrelevant at all. You're hung up on my use of the word "performative" and I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if it's true in the sense that you've interpreterd it or that this interpretaion may even make my point stronger. There's not even necessarily a reason to think that performativity precludes sincerity, so your perception of this as "booing" is really just your own built in assumption, as I tried to point out.
How does it not matter, and how does that make your point stronger, and how can something be sincere and also performative? My assumption is based on what you wrote, nothing is built-in.
Performativity simply means that the priority is projecting an image or impression, i.e. performing. It doesn't mean that the person performing can't actually believe the things they claim.
I believe you've done a motte and bailey by conflating the common public meaning of performative with a dictionary sociology meaning.
And I disagree. If you assume performative equates to insincere, then my original comment doesn't even make sense. Austin progressives are absolutely sincere in their beliefs. They are also incredibly focused on their appearance of being super progressive, even to the point where they will pass local ordinances that are counterproductive (e.g. the various ongoing homeless policies) or that are clearly intended to be overturned by the state.
Why should we think that they are incredibly focused on their appearance? Juries typically don't have that level of spotlight, and often have the opposite - being sequestered or the subject of media bans or privacy mandates. This seems like the weakest possible version of the argument, that some of the people in Austin are progressive, so we can assert that every or anything they do is performative. This is still lacking any reason to believe it's for appearances. I find it much more convincing that voters naively believe a single municipal law will solve homelessness or will stop the big mean border guards in their tracks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link