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 see you as a far leftist who defines as far right people who disagree with you and defines yourself incorectly as centrist. Since this is a very common tactic of the left to win, I think it is an important issue.
You can fit into what is tried to be presented as mainstream center left and disagree with people further left than you and still be sufficiently far to the left to qualify as far left though. Because the mainstream left is far left in its agenda. Same applies with the establishment agenda in institutions that you declare has already changed too much, even though it has not. It is a woke agenda that hasn't been dismantled and so it is obviously reasonable to question whether your self identification is inaccurate over what you actually support.
You might even honestly define yourself incorrectly as more moderate than you really are and others as much more extreme than they really are. I understand why far leftists who constantly do this tactic don't want to explore this issue, but they are actually the aggressive party, defining everyone who doesn't share their radical ideology as far right. The common principles of the mainstream liberal ideology are a far left radical ideology and you personally have fitted sufficiently with this ideology with your sentiments of insulting on people on the right who oppose for example the great replacement and aren't liberals. Again what you promote fits with wanting wokeness to remain entrenched which is an obvious point that you could have addressed directly.
It is only fair after you guys constantly try to aggressively label and marginalize others, to accept people who disagree with this and see you as the radical extreme faction. Sorry but you can't just win unopposed by just incorrectly labeling others inaccurately and labeling yourselves inaccurately, and after labeling others that you can't complain for others who disagree with your labels. Feigning neutrality while doing far left things is the tactic of far left 101 that it has constantly done.
I even worked to break down how some of the principles of liberals are extreme. That I don't just lazily label you is not the advantage that you think you are. Nobody forces people who don't want this to read only shorter posts. Let me do this again.
The truth is that if we are to put ideologies into circles, if your circle does not have shared ground with what you call far right, on nationalism, you are far left. And the reason you are far left is that your ideology is too extreme and hostile against a group and proposes a radical destructive vision, and shares within it hateful intolerant authoritarian perspective. If your ideology is a radical ideology that says that your ethnic outgroup should go extinct and be happy to do so, including the demographics that historically made a big part of a nation, that is very radical. It actually fits within treasonous hetoric in many countries, even within the text of their constitutions. It is even more radical if it is within your own nation. It isn't far right to be hostile to this ideology, but far right is a self serving arbitary label to justify this extreme agenda. In fact it is an element of the extremism that people want to label others as far right for opposing it.
If we are to put a line from anti white to pro white for example of one issue, you and mainstream liberalism will be on the far left. Or consider heteronormativity, or fertility rates and whether it makes sense to be dogmatic for liberal dogma. Or intersexual relationships and feminism vs more conservative norms. What is called far right for being too pro white for example often encompasses more moderate space than liberals. By the principle that to be too extreme in one category makes one far right, then liberals should be considered far left. Or take conservatism. When it comes to social behavior, the liberal typically is not a moderate who combines conservative with non conservative notions at least the non left wing sense, and what is called far right tends to encompass those who are more synergistic in combining conservative and some elements of social liberalism in less amount than the liberals. Or take censorship, you try to present non woke liberals (which should include neocons who are not conservatives but a form of the tribe of iberals) as betters for censorship but the discussion had various people who others wouldn't label woke, who supported this guy being fired after being doxed for his more right leaning non liberal views. A position more extreme than Vance's which was that he disagreed with him but he shouldn't be fired, because he might be good in his job and that this was the result of left wing doxxing.
If we are to analyze ideology through circles that encompass ideology, purity spiraling means to really avoid to have any shared ground with others on the areas they aren't wrong. This is a central aspect in what the space complaining about far right does on issues of nationalism, social liberalism vs conservatism, interethnic relationships. The position of the mainstream establishment fails to be at all a reasonable synthesis, or compromises in line with Aristotle's approach in Nicomedean ethics that seeks a moderate virtue that contrasts two extreme vices.
Beyond the liberals declarations of others to be far right, and for the liberals to represent some sort of reasonable center lies begging the question and purity spiral dogmatism. It is one of the biggest myths and assumptions that must be challenged and reexamined.
If people don't want to bother with doing that because it isn't in their advantage to do so, it is expected. If you want to be lazy about it, then posting that, just sounds like an excuse to avoid confronting the argument and to dismiss the other party. I think to an extend liberals have grown entitled due to expectations of censorship, allowing them to get away with just labeling themselves and others and win, without examining in the substance, if what they support is actually good and reasonable and to dissent is to be an extremist as they present it. That, and because of previous march on institutions and authoritarian measures and stubborn zealotry in repeating such associations, to an extend it has stuck and even people who oppose liberals to an extend sometimes adopt their terminology. It hasn't stuck with everyone thankfully and it is arbitrary self serving propaganda that is meant to help a political faction at the expense of any opposition, and what is true and good. That is because you are willing to label too positively untrue and destructive agendas and label too negatively true and moral perspectives.
More options
Context Copy link