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 -
Whenever you want to assume that conclusion.
I mean, sure, you could come to other conclusions based on available evidence- such that rather than a Jan 6 retcon there were always significant voices on the American right that disagreed with blue-tribe framings, that there are enough examples of boy who cried wolf that the media-commentator sphere's credibility is abysmally low, that Matt Yglesias isn't exactly anyone's idea of an objective and even-handed commentator- but you can always just dismiss such things to boo the outgroup for not booing the outgroup.
Yglesias gives specific examples of criticism:
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-13/gops-mcconnell-trump-morally-responsible-for-jan-6-attack
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/what-happened-on-january-6/
So far as I know, the National Review has been consistently Trump-critical, not endorsing any presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024 (someone please correct me if this is wrong), but McConnell?
That's nice, but why did you ignore the point you chose to reply to? Mitch McConnell is an individual, not a totem for the entirety of the American right- his stance neither proves or disproves whether there were always significant voices on the American right that disagreed with blue-tribe framings.
Moreover, Mitch McConnell's own change of views being simply labeled a retcon is itself assuming a conclusion. An alternative hypothesis would be that McConnell never bought into the Blue Tribe's framing, but was willing to pretend for political advantage at a time when it would have seemed politically advantageous. Or that McConnell believed it at the time based on information that he had, but later information changed his views. Or various other, non-assumed conclusions.
You are, of course, under no obligation to value those alternatives, but you are also under no obligation to assume Yglesias' conclusions either... which is to say you are just as free to assume the conclusion to justify booing the outgroup for not booing the outgroup.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link