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 -
In line with contemporary trends in feminist and Afrocentrist historical revisionism. The logic of today is no longer starting with some great achievement such as winning a war (like Stalin and FDR), enacting positive reforms (like emperor Meiji), or unifying an area (like Wang Kon or Lincoln) and discovering the Great Man actually responsible. No, it is searching for Africans and women, no matter how insigificant or incompetent, and inflating their every action. This is how a person whose sole accomplishment is freeing a couple of dozen of slaves leads a country of as great military, cultural, and economic importance as the US.
Tubman didn't help found the USA, didn't help it win any war, didn't lead any movement. She was like an officer in an army, being only the choice of means in limited capacity to accomplish what others had determined.
This strange racial outgroup bias, as most historians scouring history for Africans to elevate aren't Black, is sometimes taken to the absurd as seen by the oeuvre of an English teacher who identifies as a historian.
While texts he has written are by historians of the country where he managed to find an African treated as historical fiction novels, by those unable to read languages other than English he is considered to be a reliable source.
At least with Tubman an American unwilling to learn another language or use Google Translate or Deepl can read the primary sources for himself, and see what Tubman did. But if the life of an African in a country which doesn't use English is distorted, such a monolingual will most likely fall victim to the avaliability bias, and trust the persceptive of English-speaking hstorians, no matter how poor their knowledge of relevant languages is, and thus how poor their knowledge of primary sources.
I think what you're saying is you want to see Joseph Kony in Civ VIII.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link