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 -
Pushaw's specific strategy is to advocate for the right to stop speaking with journalists deemed "on the left". The problem is that she's just shifting where they'll get their info from the conservative reporter/site as opposed to the person themself. This is fine if your goal is to build up an army of right-friendly reporters (in the literal sense), not if your goal is to delegitimize your enemies. And now, they won't even have to ask that person to speak for themself, since everyone will know that "the right doesn't talk to the NYT". You'll just see "person X did not reply to requests for comment".
In my opinion, Pushaw's view on why people who say they are on the left or right might believe that the NYT is a fair journal is wrong. At the very least, it is not because they think the NYT has access to the comments from both sides, and even in her own hypothetical, they'd still have that access. Compare the following.
"Governor DeSantis told the NYT that he doesn't think he's anti-LGBT."
"Governor DeSantis told Pushaw's Trust Journalists that he doesn't think he's anti-LGBT."
If you saw the same article with only this distinction, would you tell anyone they were meaningfully different? I wouldn't. It's just another chain in the "where did this come from" game we all have to play.
If Pushaw wants to delegitimize the NYT, I don't think any plan is going to revolve significantly around the idea of not talking directly, even if that's something you'd do anyways.
The right does not have the power to delegitimize its enemies in anyone's eyes but its own, and right now even that task is incomplete.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is you would never see that article in the first place, at least framed that way. The interview would be chopped and pasted and recontextualized as something like "DeSantis angrily disputes homophobic concerns from civil rights groups". I watch network news in the morning because my parents do, and they want to talk to me about it, and the problem is exactly what Pushaw is talking about. They see 40 seconds of clips featuring three different question/responses from an interview with Hershel Walker, and they have no idea how long that interview was, what was left out, what context is being omitted, etc. They just get the impression that "Walker was interviewed by the news and this is what he had to say". They don't even notice until I point it out that that 40 seconds features more intense grilling than all Democrats combined have gotten on that channel in the last two years.
Compared to living with that crap, a full court press delegitimating effort is at least an actionable strategy. Actually treat them like the partisan SuperPAC they essentially are.
More options
Context Copy link
Gotcha. I agree that this will only marginally push the needle on delegitimization, albeit positively. Perhaps someone will go check out Pushaw Trust Journalists; perhaps the monoculture of who interacts with those institutions will make a couple more people skeptical of what they say or print.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link