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 don't believe I said anything about the anti-woke as a general category? Honestly, I think that if you're Chris Rufo or James Lindsay, the best response to TW's FAA story is to just applaud. Just say, "Yes, this is what we're talking about."
I am sure that if Kamala Harris were president right now, there would still be lots of people doing anti-DEI advocacy, and TW would no doubt be among them. I do not believe that he would have changed his mind about or refused to engage in the FAA reporting if Harris were president.
That just sounds to me like you think it's partisan to cast a vote at all. Yes, he voted for a candidate that he hated but considered on balance less bad than the other one. But that's what most people do. I would say that a 'partisan' for a particular party or candidate is someone who spends significant time or effort boosting that party or candidate - and since TW has spent much more criticising the Democrats or Harris than boosting them, I don't consider him a partisan for them. I think he just made the decision that, in a presidential election, which is ultimately a binary choice, he found them less bad than the alternative.
I think the fact that he was actively and effectively working to expose and address the issue undermines your point here. You don't need to vote for Donald Trump to oppose DEI. It is possible to take the position, "DEI is bad, Harris' support for DEI is bad, but on balance Harris is less bad than Trump, so I will vote for Harris while continuing to advocate against DEI".
Trump voters can make the exact same move - such-and-such policy is bad, Trump supports the bad policy, but I think that on balance Trump is less bad than Harris, so I will vote for Trump and continue to advocate against the bad policy. You do not have to agree with a candidate on every single issue to judge that candidate preferable at the ballot box.
This was actually an example in Scott's 'Varieties of Argumentative Experience', under the 'Single Facts' heading.
As here:
The top-level post that I was responding to was about liberals who try to minimise the story or attack TW for giving cover to the (ex hypothesi bad and fascist) Trump administration; and I was reading lots of comments here criticising TW for being a centrist Democrat who continues to believe that Trump is bad. I was saying that in the context of all these "who? whom?" arguments, it is worth allowing all of ourselves the sober reminder that what he said was both true and normatively right. That's the ball that we should keep our eyes on.
When he posted his original article, I don't anyone here said anything else.
That's nice, but what would that accomplish? Trace is barely one voice in a massive choir impotently complaining about DEI, and whether he stopped impotently complaining the moment Harris got elected, or complained twice as hard, the result would be the same. By contrast Trump, even if he ultimately falters, is at least making a dent. If you're going to tell me to vote for a politician that would double down on DEI and against one of the few that are likely to dampen it, I feel free to dismiss your claim to be one of the greatest DEI-fighters out there.
No, this is completely unfair. I specifically said he's perfectly entitled to vote for Harris, it's his endorsement that's the issue.
Yeah, but that's not what I'm accusing him of. I'm saying he would never endorse any Republican that would be likely to do anything to put a stop to DEI, or to any other issue he supposedly cares about. He would not endorse DeSantis, he would not endorse Vance, he might endorse someone completely ineffectual (/deliberately sabotaging the side he represents) like Romney, but not someone actually likely to do something to rollback the past 10 years.
Citation needed. There are issues where you can contribute to meaningful change without electing a populist, or taking drastic steps. Take something like the trans issue, there's enough academic pushback to the idea, that I think it's possible to eventually put a stop to it by following all the procedures so beloved by liberals, and without electing politicians that will take drastic action. By contrast 10 years of "exposing and addressing" DEI accomplished absolutely nothing, what worked is banning it from the federal government, and cutting off the money-spigot.
I still don't understand what is the point of this reminder, no one here doubted it. People here are criticizing him, because just like he has his grievances with us, with have ours with him. To me it feels like you're trying to shut off that criticism for no other reason than you personally liking him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link