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 -
You absolutely can though. To the normie mind, "racist" equals "doesn't like (group)". If you talk in a way that doesn't actually imply any dislike of a group, they won't grok you as racist, and won't pay any mind to people who accuse you of racism.
If you talk in a way that implies blacks are innately dumber than some other group you are not getting anywhere. Race and IQ stuff are beyond the pale if you are a hereditarian.
In what universe? I mean maybe in Berkeley, but the normies around me say shit that implies a black intelligence disadvantage all the time, they just don’t use the words ‘blacks are on average one standard deviation lower in IQ than whites’.
We must hang around different types of people.
I would say this is probably true, but normies don’t say things where you can see them like ‘they’re kind of clueless’ when someone’s getting irritated with a black? No complaining about ‘football names’ and ‘shaniqua’ and ‘what did they expect when they decided the government should be daddy’ or snarking about Juneteenth being so close to Father’s Day so everyone could have something to celebrate? No ‘well they’re racist too’? No discussion of how ‘Katrina kids’ dragged down the public schools and they should be more like the Vietnamese or Mexicans?
I'd agree to an extent, but those are seen as being private conversations. You don't go out in public outside the friendgroup and talk like that. In fact I'd argue most people who engage in such talk believe that it is not allowed. Cue memes of the group chat getting leaked and such.
It's not a matter of having an opinion of being allowed to say X or Y, there's just a recognition that this sort of thing is not allowed in the public eye.
It doesn’t seem like those kinds of statements are any less speakable in public than stuff like ‘bitches be crazy’ or other anodyne boomer political incorrectness.
More options
Context Copy link
This is really interesting to me because it's rare to see somebody openly work from a foundation that social harmony is of higher moral value than truth. (Elsewhere you wrote: "You can't tell the black people the truth because that's ugly and no one has the stomach for it, so where do you go?")
I don't think this works philosophically in the long run to ultimately produce anything but gobbledygook, unless you take the Noble Lie stance of "ok, between you and me, we can speak truth, but it must be contained within this room and we must lie to the masses," which IMO still has its problems but at least it allows truth to flourish somewhere which seems a hard prerequisite to making any sense in the long run.
Speaking personally the idea that compromising truth in the name of not making people mad is an objective moral good is alien to me. I do it at times but always with a sense that I am selling out my integrity. Mostly just fascinated to run into somebody who's like "Yeah F it tell people what they want to hear, this is the moral thing to do."
I am not convinced a society earnestly built on this principle doesn't ultimately implode but time will tell I guess.
I had a therapist who strongly believed this, and considered having anything other than "fitting in" with one's peer group as highest priority in determining one's beliefs to itself constitute some manner of psychological disorder. Her go-to defense for any view was to cite its popularity, and even more so her go-to criticism of a position is that it's "unpopular" or "weird." She was a firm believer in vox populi, vox Dei, and when I pointed out that this was the framework of her arguments and that I, as a monarchist, rejected it utterly, she was completely at a loss. I mean, stunned silence for quite a noticeable length. It seemed so deeply imbedded in her worldview, so base an assumption, that she didn't seem to know how to respond to having it so bluntly challenged.
(I'm also once reminded of a blog comment exchange — I think it was pre-disqus The American Conservative — involving the Japanese honne/tatemae distinction, that also included something like a defense of "social harmony over truth." Though, there the argument was that Westerners have an "overly simplistic" and "narrow" view of what "truth" is, thanks mostly to Plato (this is the main part that made this exchange memorable), and thus fail to grasp that "social consensus" is "truth," just as much as personal understanding of the facts is also "truth," they're just different kinds of truth. Needless to say, most everyone else commenting at TAC disagreed with this view.)
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