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 -
And I oppose continued running in that opposite direction. In the data, the groups are getting smaller in absolute terms, although they may be forming larger and more robust coalitions (around identity characteristics, which I obviously oppose). That trump made historic gains with minorities shows that its not an insuperable boundary. Urban/rural, BA/no-degree, costal/center, religious, and economic categories usually show a wider disparity than almost all identity labels. This is the norm for all of US history. North/south, and urban/rural divides go back to de Tocqueville, and arguably back 14th century Irish cracker culture, which would appear in the American south. Over the past few decades blacks have probably lost more than they've gained from in-group and party loyalties. I don't wish that on anyone. But having been governed under wildly disparate laws for centuries, this at least made sense. And even then only for a handful of decades.
People of every political persuasion have long cared about poor whites by dint of caring about poor people generally. Both black and white poors have often been derided in the culture, but those hurt feelings don't beggar a policy response. As far back as 1900 there were assistance programs for poor, disproportionally white Southerners which they often pridefully rejected (talking about hookworm eradication here). Blacks were often squeezed out of such assistance (their current welfare dependency notwithstanding). More recently, technology led to globalization, which hurt specific, largely white, regions. Industrial and trade policy should care just as much about the blacks in Detroit as the whites in Appalachia. Both got screwed. Otherwise you necessarily invite useless arguments over relative privation, apparently extending all the way to 1619. Its lunacy.
My advice to black America has long been "Yeah, you got historically screwed. But rest assured, help is very much not on its way. Therefore, just copy Asians where possible." Its no different for whites. There was a brief window where idpol achieved something useful. Trump rescinding Johnsons EO is good precisely because the policy has been bassackwards for decades. The territory is that certain people need specific policy to serve their interests. This is normal. But race is a bad map.
More options
Context Copy link