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 don't feel particularly enraged but I do think this post is the most clear-cut example of mistake vs. conflict theory I've seen in years if not ever - an acclaimed grandmaster of mistake theory politely addresses one side of the culture war (I don't have my dictionary but I think a "war" can be pictured as a kind of conflict), helpfully suggests that their course of action may be, well, a mistake, and is shocked to discover the apparent persuasive power of yes_chad.jpg. While I do not dare doubt Scott's ulterior motives and believe he really is this
naiveprincipled, I refuse to believe he is not aware of what he's arguing, he is this close to realizing it (emphasis mine):Followed by 9 points of reminding stab victims that daggers are dangerous weapons, and one shouldn't swing them recklessly - someone could get hurt!
Disregarding whether or not the broadly painted enemies-of-the-right are in fact going to go right back to swinging daggers the millisecond the cultural headwind blows their way again (although the answer seems intuitive) - what compelling reason, at this point, is there to believe they would not? Does he really think that gracefully turning the other cheek will magically convince anyone on the obviously dominant side that cancel culture is bad actually - or (less charitably) even lead to any, any "are we the baddies" entry-level introspection among those involved at all? Does he expect anyone at all to be reassured by a reminder that daggers can't legally enter your body without your consent? I suppose he really does since from his list only 8) can be read as a psyop attempt and everything else seems to be entirely genuine, but I'll freely admit this mindset is alien to me.
Do the people rationalizing the escalatory course of action as "something we'll do until the other side learns to stop" really think that their actions will lead to any basic "are we the baddies"-type introspection on the left?
No, I don't think any possible actions, up to and including total surrender, will spark introspection.
(that was the joke)
Besides, {russell:fighting back/lashing out/escalatory course of action} once in a while has a far better track record of effectively stopping bullying than just gracefully taking it.
More options
Context Copy link
Do the "let's unilaterally surrender" people think the beatings will stop if only we submit more meekly?
"Don't fire back at them when they are shelling us. That will only make them shoot at us even more."
Nonviolence/nonslander as a response to violence/slander is a known part of game theory. It only works when someone on the side of the aggressors has both the introspection to see their actions as wrong and the power to halt the aggression. Otherwise, it’ll have to be tit-for-tat for survival.
At the moment, all such people are on the right, except maybe Obama, Oprah, and Anderson Cooper. (I’m only calling out names the undecided voters would consider following if they called for peace in the culture war.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it will lead to introspection by most people on the left; most people in general are incapable of "are we the baddies"-type introspection. An escalatory course of action is likely to lead to a change in behavior by the left because when it's widely known that (doing whatever left-coded thing the right is able to push outside the overton window) will cost you your job, friends, social status, etc. then most people will stop doing that thing. The masses will make posthoc rationalizations for why they were justified in their prior behavior but now they know better.
If the right continues to "take the high ground", there's no reason for the masses to ever change their behavior or beliefs. The right would have to wait until the majority of the left decides to perform that "are we the baddies"-type introspection, and that will never happen.
On the contrary: if the right abuses the tactics the left does, there's no reason that the masses will ever change their behavior or beliefs. They will see "the right is a bunch of hypocrites" (and they will be correct to do so), and continue to fight to put the screws to their enemies. After all, they thought the right was evil before, the right confirmed it in their eyes, so why shouldn't they fight to put them out of existence?
That's why people keep saying to not escalate things into a cycle of hatred where each side stabs the other as soon as it gets ahold of a dagger. Taking the high road is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it is necessary. Taking the low road simply ensures the conflict will continue unabated.
That does not match my predictions of social behavior or my reading of history. People do not pick sides based on which they view is more of a hypocrite; they pick sides mostly based on what's socially acceptable. The Peace of Westphalia was not negotiated because the Catholics "turned the other cheek" so much that the Protestants felt guilty. It was because everyone got tired of the killing.
The responses to StickerMule's milquetoast post-assassination-attempt call for unity tell me that the left is not close to being tired of the metaphorical killing.
People have already picked sides. The goal at this point is not "get people to pick my side", it's "get people who have already chosen the other side to stand down". And those people are going to double down, not stand down, if the right persists in this hypocrisy on cancel culture.
"Pick sides" in this context is "we should get our enemies fired from their jobs" vs "we should abstain from doing that". Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Regardless, that does not match my predictions of social behavior or my reading of history. From the standpoint of the right, the choices are:
I disagree with your analysis. The two choices are, in my view:
Take the high road, and by doing so gain credibility with the left which can be used to cool tensions, or
Double down, expect the left to double down, and let it keep getting worse until both sides agree to stop. Which they may never, and it may not be in our lifetimes.
Option 1 is the clear superior choice in my view. Also note that in option 2, someone still needs to take the high road eventually. So long as people are thinking in terms of "fuck the other guy, it's his turn to get kicked now" (which is what many in this forum have explicitly argued for), the conflict in #2 will never actually end.
Would you show me some historical examples of when your choice 1 was successful? Mitt Romney is the favorite counterexample of how that strategy doesn't work here in practice. I don't think Gandhi is a good analogy, since the modern American right lacks many of the factors favorable to him (Britain's economic and military weakness after WWII, a shared Indian cultural identity, international pressure against colonialism, Britain's willingness to negotiate).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have some reason to believe this is going to happen? Cold civil war turning to hot civil war seems much likelier.
That's a very good question. I think, for now, America is rich enough and people are comfortable enough where a Balkans-esque civil war is impossible. There may be targeted terrorism similar in scale to what we had in the 70s, but that would still leave the ability of new or existing institutions to broker a peace because Americans won't have to actually murder their neighbors for food. I think the disaffected male youth will have enough video games, porn, and chicken nuggets to mostly skip out on joining their local warlord.
But even so, if my options to 1) take the high ground and lose my culture, heritage, future employment for my children, firearms, and everything else right-coded; or to 2) fight back and risk a hot civil war, then I'll choose to fight and encourage others to do the same. Read Solzhenitsyn about how a victory by the left can go; it's not as if a choice of the right to "take the high ground" aka "surrender" would be safe from the horrors of war.
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
More options
Context Copy link