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'm making up the fact that there are a lot of rightists who do not believe in compromise or coexistence with leftists? Really?
"Most" is my opinion, but I don't see how you deny "many."
Okay, so you just said "We are not the same" (about my liberal friends who you think are uncompromising extremists).
If by your own admission you are an uncompromising extremist, well, you are the same. Which places neither of you on higher moral ground.
Reread my commment. I didn't say "compromise and coexistence", I said "I leave you alone, and you leave me alone, and we both get to have spheres that are in accordance with our values". You completely changed the conditions I offered.
With that in mind, yeah I'm pretty sure most right wingers would not be uncomfortable with those terms, whereas most leftwingers would, and that it does mean we are not the same and I have the moral high ground.
I don't think I did ("compromise and coexist" to me is pretty much the same as "leave you alone, and you leave them alone, and you both get to have spheres that are in accordance with your values", unless you think you're all going to be living on different continents or something). But using your specific wording, I will state the same thing: I think some liberals would agree to that and some would not, and some rightists would agree to that, and some (most, IMO) would not.
I'd say compromise necessarily involves adjusting your life so that you don't live in full accordance with your values (and in return your opponent does the same). I fundamentally different solution to what I put forward. It doesn't involve living on different continents, America's federal system is more than enough to handle it, if the states were allowed more autonomy, in the worst case it would involve secession.
I guess we'd have to agree to disagree on the respective ratios of people who would comfortable with that solution on each side. I'm yet to run out of fingers for the liberals that would see the solution as acceptable. I'm not going to say there aren't right-wingers with a similar totalizing mindset, but the majority can respect a neighbor's fence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link