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 -
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).
Literally every time peace has ever happened? Peace always starts by someone saying "no, I'm not going to hit them back, instead I'm going to try to appeal to their better nature and end this".
You would describe the end of WWII hostilities between the US and Japan as "no, I'm not going to hit them back, instead I'm going to try to appeal to their better nature and end this"? I was hoping for an example with more parallels between the current left/right power dynamic, showing that the underdog could expect a fair resolution by taking the high road.
I don't think that there is an underdog here, so that's probably the first point where we disagree. I see two roughly evenly matched sides which will produce a long, drawn-out conflict where everyone loses.
But let's say that the right is, as you say, the underdog. Isn't "the underdog taking the high road" exactly what led to the US-Japan peace in WW2? Japan started a fight they couldn't win, the US hit them back so hard they realized "oh shit we're not going to win this fight", and so they passed up the chance for vengeance in favor of appealing to the better nature of the US. Seems to me like your strategy would say they should have kept fighting the US until the Americans gave in and stopped fighting.
No, I do not think Japan was "appealing to the better nature of the US" when they surrendered. They lost the war, and had to agree to everything the US demanded of them. I do not think anyone on the right should view the surrender of Japan as aspirational, nor do I think the right is doomed to lose the culture war today in the same way Japan was doomed to lose the war in the Pacific after Midway (arguably Pearl Harbor, but that's a completely different discussion).
More options
Context Copy link
It's worth noting that Japan nearly chose to fight to the death. I don't know what motivated the Emperor specifically to surrender, but just the act of deciding on surrender caused him to nearly be couped by his ultranationalist military, as I understand it. Hell, the Japanese were preparing for the Americans to land on their shores, and were nearly ready to make a desperate last stand.
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
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