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 -
I had written this:
but hadn't yet posted it and more comments came in.
The Doonesbury use isn't purely positive, it's the (what I would call) "traditional meaning" (that I described above). Your link is to a compilation introduction which mentions "Rev. Scot Sloan, social justice warrior." Here's Scot Sloan:
"Reverend Scot Sloan's the name. Perhaps you read about me in 'Look' [Magazine]. I'm the fighting young priest who can talk to the young."
Guy introduces himself with his press clippings. He cares more about his image than actual social justice. That's (the old meaning I remember for) an SJW.
You're making me nostalgic for my childhood here. :/ In the '80s liberal bubble I grew up in, people like that were seen as "obviously grifting or at least on an ego trip" but treated with amused tolerance, "hey they are officially on our side"--see also the portrayal of Richard Henry Lee in 1776. My dad similarly always referenced Jesse Jackson in that way, with amused tolerance (and in Jackson's case even affection). Still, it's not something you'd really set out to be; an SJW in that subculture was a figure of fun, not someone respected. Another example would be Gilderoy Lockhart.
More options
Context Copy link