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 -
Both of these are pretty high-rent versions of sexism and classism. It seems to me you hold to very principled beliefs that your outgroup often describes as sexism and classism, such that when the real deal, the big salami, the whole enchilada, the motte-of-mottes, appears, your instinct is to insist that it's not real. Are you sure that UK beat cops have such principled views?
In particular, noblesse oblige strikes me as similar to "I treat my slaves very well, thank you" -- a rhetorical cope, a play pretend, an attempt at justifying power by arguing it's wielded appropriately. Whenever someone makes reference to noblesse oblige with one side of their mouth, they typically talk about "miserable wastes of human garbage" with the other. I'm not sure there's ever been a society where the elite holistically believed it had obligations to the lower classes while retaining basic human respect and compassion for them.
I don't have a strong opinion on the Rotherham issue, though I do abhor all the crimes that happened as any feeling person would. But it appears like you're intent on pinning blame squarely on the outgroup and attributing it to outgroup beliefs, without considering whether parts of the ingroup or ingroup beliefs could have contributed to the neglect that happened. Is it really out of the question that police beliefs in underclass girls being incorrigible sluts contributed to their actions?
Just from what I've skimmed of this discussion, it seems to me you can believe the findings of the report while also opposing the ways in which left-wingers contributed to it. In fact, there's a possible right-wing interpretation in there: the police were so jaded because they were dealing with an underclass community incredibly neglectful of their children and unconcerned for their basic welfare, such that even "drag[ging] her back home kicking and screaming" wouldn't have even done anything. This speaks to the need for strong family values, no?
And then, there were men from a cultural background that influenced them to see these neglected girls as prey for the taking. The system wasn't set up, nor were police prepared, to deal with criminals so depraved that this would even occur to them as a good choice of action. This speaks to the cultural incompatibility of this culture with Western values, no?
My partner makes this case regarding how criminal justice in the US deals with psychopaths and serial rapists: our justice system is designed for a far more culturally and morally homogenous society than what we have, and so even our tough-on-crime advocates often pursue shorter and less effective penalties than what someone designing a new system from the ground up for our society as it stands might choose. Our policing is built for peaceful towns where a murder is a once-in-a-decade event, but our societies are far more violent than that. Perhaps it isn't possible to police the Anglosphere in a first-world way. And once we start considering non-first-world methods... we go down the deep, dark rabbit hole of classism and sexism pretty quickly.
In a sense, that's what's happened with the UK police: the utter depravity and cultural incompatibility of these rapists and the hopelessness of these girls' cases in the face of their parents' total indifference was so shocking, so incomprehensible, so outside of what the UK's "policing by consent" system was intended to deal with, that all their instincts towards a rigorous pursuit of justice shut down, and they had to find some way in which it was the girl's fault. Perhaps this happened for the same reasons that feminists are often driven to find some way in which the suffering of struggling men is their own fault: the need for a just world where the ingroup is nothing but good and the outgroup is nothing but bad. If nothing can be done, then it's psychologically much easier to say that nothing wrong is happening. After all, I treat my slaves well.
It seems to me that the left and the right often agree on what the problem is, but differ profoundly in their understanding of the causes of that problem, and moreover the solutions that would fix it. The Rotherham scandal strikes me as a situation where both the left and the right accurately perceive different areas of the problem, but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their opponents' points because that might involve serious reconsideration of one's own worldview.
Even if their analysis is dead wrong, my opponents very often have different experiences from me, and thus perceive different things in the world, even if "seeing, they do not see" and "hearing, they do not hear" -- nor do they understand. It's because of this belief that I value discussion spaces like this.
More options
Context Copy link