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 -
As an organization grows, it becomes more challenging and then impossible for a single person to keep track of what's happening. Eventually they need to receive information and give orders without a way to verify whether the information is true or the orders were carried out. Add a few more layers of this, and this is why "all organizations that are not explicitly right-wing will over time become left-wing."
Left-wing of course is an organizational structure where low performers pledge their loyalty to managers in exchange for loot, which the managers extract from the productive parts of the organization using said loyalty. Every organization therefore experiences the same cycle: inception -> growth -> leftist takeover -> collapse.
Religion, nationalism, or any sort of ethos that unites people in service of some higher mission is social technology that prevents these last two parts.
This is pure "boo outgroup" without even a pretense at providing evidence for your claim.
Seriously, people, actually read the rules in the sidebar. They have not changed significantly since we moved.
Is boo outgroup allowed if it's true?
For example: the behaviour of the "experts", media, government during COVID re: vaccine/lockdown skeptics, lab leak theorists was fully insane. It's now being walked back completely. A sober assessment of all of these events is extremely "boo outgroup". Are we allowed to say this stuff anyway, as long as it's in a somewhat civil way?
If a statement is true, but is boo outgroupy, you can make it not boo outgroup by just fleshing it out more and explaining why it's true. If you make novel or compelling, or even just interesting, points that are 'boo outgroup', the mods will probably allow it (see: kulak's regular genocidposts), but the OP was meh
Did jesus give anyone loot? What about philanthropy? Left-wingers really do care about the poor minorities (not that they should), and really do want to free them from pain, complexity, oppression. This isn't just 'pledging loyalty for loot' exactly
More options
Context Copy link
Everyone thinks what they're saying about their outgroup is true. What you mean is, "Is boo outgroup allowed if I really, really believe it's true?"
The answer is no, not unless it's a provable fact. You can express your interpretation of events and what you think it means, but consensus-building statements that just assert that what you think of your outgroup is true is not allowed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ll join in the calls for Citation Needed. Passing information does not make something left-wing. Arguably, your example suggests a more reactionary, feudal structure in which the benighted peasants contract with a sovereign. It’s not a good example, given that you don’t explain how the productive end up loyal, but what should I expect from a cheap drive-by?
Also: paging that guy who wanted to prove wokeness was a religion.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you will need to provide some evidence for your contention. That certainly isn't how I would define a left-wing organization, let alone "of course". There are many different organizational structures on the left from anarcho-communism through to hierarchal authoritarian communism to left-libertarianism through to neo-liberal progressive capitalism.
Opposition to hierarchy is in the definition as per wikipedia. The force that drives these politics is a broker/manager class who profess the politics, supported by those who gain something from opposition to hierarchy i.e. those in the lower portion. Said alliance is easy to pick out in every leftist regime in history as well as on a smaller scale in organizations.
Note you left out the word social from the definition, which changes quite a bit. Left wing militaries have hierarchies. Left wing companies have hierarchies. Even coops and the like do. Left wing political parties have hierarchies.
You're drawing way too broad a brush here and it is undermining your point considerably. I've worked in bureaucracies often said to be left wing and they did not have the manager/low status alliance. Indeed they were very much dog eat dog. Where people below would throw their manager under the bus for a chance at a promotion. Scheming and office politics are much more definitional in my experience that some kind of mid/low alliance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot, sadly. They spent over a century developing a whole ideology around it, no one else can compete
Same goes for you. If "my outgroup sucks" is the sum total of the content of your post, save it. This is a place for actually making arguments, not just flashing boo-lights for the appreciation of your fellow booers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link