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 -
Well, this sounds way better to me but doesn't really make a lot of sense. So you want liberals to lose their jobs but also for that to be illegal? I thought that the point was to attack and not relent or "roll over"?
In addition this is a Step One that has already occurred in many cases. This might be news to you but people on the left get cancelled all the time. At some points more often because there are more of them in spaces controlled by leftists. This hasn't really led to a change of heart. I think it's plausible that the left might allow changes like the one suggested, but not because of this specific event - but because they're losing their grip over social media. But that's an ongoing change, something that's been happening slowly now for a few years.
Force should be applied along a continuum until compliance (or 'persuasion' if you prefer!) is achieved. We can start with explicit Dead 45 comments made after July 13th. If nobody's feeling interested in setting down bipartisan protections after that, then the ratcheting should continue until it is desirable. And if that day never comes, then seeking complete dominance gets put on the table. Everybody here is familiar with the "your rules/my rules/fairly" orders of preference, and I'm trying to be clear about mine. Concerns regarding how successful this can be are valid, but don't dissuade me from thinking its worth attempting. "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" is also a villain line in movies, but it has been more true through history than not if we're honest.
Previous intra-left cancelations have had more to do with failing to meet purity standards or not being up to speed with the most current lingo of the day. I think what's different after the Trump shooting is that they are now being visited by something outside of their wheelhouse, and it is making some of them crap themselves. Nobody in Dem-ville had to worry about lazily wishing for Trump to be assassinated (couched in cutesy Harry Potter metaphors, or trans-themed guillotine memes from the 'Love is Love' Facebook group) up until last week. My read isn't that Gass and HD lady are being punished because their peers or employers are truly offended by them, but because they are are afraid of what may be coming if they don't start heading this off now - especially since it looks like we will be getting an energized Trump admin with a popular mandate pretty soon. That fear should be exploited to get concessions or at least a table-meet.
You're right that some of this has already been churning in social media, but I think it's really only been on Twitter, and that is a direct result of one man being in the right place at the right time. Reddit got worse with each passing year, and only now may be internally wondering what their path beyond 2024 should be. It's incumbent upon conservatives to start flooding this space with their own heuristics and impacting the Overton window now, and that unfortunately is going to involve street scraps and some old ladies getting knocked over. I guess we could hold fire and wait on some high-minded technocratic solutions from Musk and his peers to shake out from top-down. Or he could be bankrupted or assasinated by next week, get replaced by somebody who's happy to revert to status quo circa 2020, and the opportunity to build some momentum on a grass-roots level will have been completely whiffed on.
I have to wonder...
My stereotype of a cancelled person is a heterodox liberal in a blue state or sphere. Your James Damores, JK Rowlings or whatever. But your average policy maker is usually someone who has spent their whole life being surrounded by people who think just like them. In that sense, DJT is very unusual, he's right wing but spent much of his life surrounded by New York Democrats. That's why he comes off as so defensive, instead of the complacency (a common defect among conservative politicians) of Utah raised Romney.
That's why I suspect that we might get the opposite - law that for example, makes it easier to fire public sector employees for their comments on social media. Your average red state legislator is going to be less interested in the travails of SF programmers or Chicago academics, and more interested in putting the fear of God in the public school teachers in his state.
But, for the object level discussion, I think it's natural that it's going to be tough for conservatives to embrace cancel culture. Knowledge producing conservatives, meaning journalists, academics, whatever, still exist and operate in blue controlled regions and spheres. They are highly motivated to try and lower the temperature, not raise it. And liberals still have the share of institutional power in the US, even if the right has clawed a little bit back. I agree with the other post here that the historical reason that conservatives have gotten the brunt of cancellation is not because of how principled they were (a joke, to be sure), but because they lost institutional power.
I also don't know if this even works as a sell. Can you sell "end cancel culture" to America even as you freely engage in it? Probably not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link