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 -
I read a bit, and then started skimming. Not enraged, just disagree with a few points (though I guess I was a voice of relative restraint):
That's silly. They don't want to do it because they think it's good, they think it's bad, and that his bad thing needs to be done to the people who were doing it with impunity for the past decade. So yes, it has taught them that it's bad.
Much like his point about the necessity to define Cancel Culture, I think we need to sit down and talk out the limits of individualism and collectivism. Yes, I agree full-collectivism is bad, but full-individualism is plainly unworkable, and opens you to attack from hostile groups. We mostly know this already - no one is going to treat a hundred thousand Russian soldiers the same way they'd treat a hundred thousand individual Russians they met somewhere. Now one might protest it's obviously different, because an army is an official organization, with uniforms that makes your membership clearly visible from a distance, but I regret to inform you that not all collectives (not even all armies) are kind enough to uniform themselves, or have a clear hierarchical command structure, with a chain of responsibility.
I'd argue half the reason we're in this mess to start with is individualists insisting on individualism, and getting their ass handed to them by collectivists as a result.
I don't have answers here, but I think the question does need to be raised.
I'd counter by pointing out that Nick Fuentes is, quite possibly, The Most Cancelled Man In America. Aside from that - I stood for a lot of these people when they were getting shot at, and was shot at myself for doing so, you don't get to push me away from them now, just because you've mentally put me in the "red" basket.
All fine and well, but if you want to avoid a cycle of vengence, you have to at least offer some restitution (everyone that got throttled by Big Tech, will now have to be promoted by the algorithm!), or offer a different venue for the bloodlust. Here's my humble contribution: make it legal for cancellation victims to challenge their cancelers to a duel, and illegal for the cancelers to decline. If you got me fired for the OK handisgn, I get to pommel you in the Octagon until you black out. Bloodlust satisfied, no need for more cancellations, and we even have a mechanism to prevent future cancel mobs!
I think honestly people do learn from being persecuted. If they didn’t we’d never have gotten to this point. The very public cancellations will have some impact if they continue for longer, just like the Budlight thing is having an impact. I’ve noted a decline in public companies making overtly political statements since then. A lot of Pride related merchandising has declined. Companies are somewhat less vocal about DEI since the backlash against that.
What seems to work is targeted cancellations over a long enough time and having mere apologies not being enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link