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 any war both sides use plenty of similar tools against each other because they work. You don't see a war when one side is capable but decides to not use bullets, missiles, tanks, artillery, air force.
Promoting sympathy for X by portraying them as a minority group under threat is a tool that seems like it would work. X is treated with less sympathy because of rhetoric promoting sympathy for Z as a minority under threat and X as the threat. There isn't any logic to why this won't work if you potray different groups with sympathy and others as threatening them.
Throughout history different tribes promoted narratives that were pro their tribe and antagonistic to other tribes, which worked better than if they did nothing.
One can say that going too far with tribalism might lead to backlash, or can be detrimental in how other tribes are treated. But not going far enough is guaranteed to be detrimental and never lead to any dismantling or weakening of ideology against the group that is adviced not to use the master's tools. So it is a bad advice for the side that has been under siege to avoid using any of the tools of their more tribalist opposition. From a general ethical viewpoint, what in excess is immoral and in too little quantity is bad, in the right amount can be the right thing to do. Beyond just effectiveness.
Slavery itself was ended through force and so it was ended by the tool that maintained it. Rhetoric advocating for and against slavery was another rhetoric used by both sides. Both sides even used the bible. Supporters of slavery might have thought of their own political influence and opponents might have thought of their declining political influence and rise of influence of slave states. Economic interests that relate to slavery and then to those whose under industrial revolution and their different societal organization they didn't benefit with slavery as much and might saw such areas as antagonistic, might had been a factor. Both enslaved who opposed slavery and slave owners where thinking of their interests in opposing each other.
This idea that X group unlike Z group should not pursue their own interests and promote rhetoric framing things in defense of themselves because in doing so they will lose, is not only false but very counter intuitively false.
More options
Context Copy link