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 -
On one hand, I appreciate the decorum of not politicizing national cemeteries. On the other, I appreciate your Constitutional argument, and it seems like we live in a time in which everything ("the personal," as the kids say) is political. Most wouldn't object to the President attending a ceremony at Arlington and giving a speech (indeed, this seems like a pretty regular occurrence), and the Right seems to have dug up campaign ads he's used in the past featuring national cemeteries. If we're not careful, the rule will quickly spiral in practice into "the President's political opponents are not allowed to attend ceremonies on public grounds," which feels very autocratic.
In practice, I don't really come off liking either side here: Trump seems to be pulling a political stunt on hallowed ground. On the other, Biden seems unbothered to attend to the families of soldiers sent to their deaths on his orders three years ago. I haven't read Trump's remarks, so it's possible the only direct politicizing was implicitly by Biden's absence, although from what I know of the man that seems unlikely.
Honestly, I am, for once, appreciating that other countries like the UK have a (mostly) non-political head of state (The Queen) that can attend to such things.
I guess prior to recent decades, everyone occupying or campaigning for that office had the sense not to pull a political stunt on hallowed ground. That practice didn't spiral out of control.
More options
Context Copy link
Boy, do I have bad news for you.
I chose The Queen as the example because I wasn't really sure if Charles has acquired the same "beloved, apolitical voice of patriotic respect" that she had yet. But I'd be curious to hear from any of his subjects that have an opinion on that.
Charles III was somewhat politically active as the King-in-waiting (Prince of Wales).
He was never as political as Prince Harry, and never expressed opinions on live-wire issues like race, socialism, immigration etc. But he had a bunch of pro organic farming initiatives and youth schemes, plus low-key campaigning against GM crops. He also once personally intervened to stop the Saudis building a godawful modern monstrosity in London, persuading them to go for something more classical.
In general, King Charles was more political as a prince precisely because he knew he would have to be impartial once he became king. Now that he is King, he’s been much more careful. He’s never going to be Elizabeth II because he doesn’t have 50 years of rule going for him, but I’d say he’s broadly respected.
The problem has been more from PMs abusing him - Rishi Sunak signed a controversial Brexit-related deal practically on his doorstep before then getting Charles to have tea with the relevant signatories, in order to imply the deal had Royal assent and give it more power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link