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 -
Presuming that this group of people is more or less Red Tribe, this seems like a statement that should be testable by objective evidence. Woman, Rape, Racism, Sexism, Feminism, Child Abuse all seem like words whose definitions have been radically altered, where it is a matter of objective fact who is doing the altering.
This seems wrong in two ways: first, because the conversations here have had a direct relation to the conversations happening nationally, and second, because a number of the views we've been discussing here have just been championed by the victorious candidate in a national election as well as a number of lesser cultural arenas. The online reactionaries are engaging with the national conversation, and what's more they're currently conducting a wildly successful offensive.
The Motte might be described as a "reactionary website". I don't think that's a fair description of either Vox or the state of California, or the Biden administration. Vox and the State of California and the Biden administration are the ones claiming what you (and I!) call sexism is actually "Feminism". And you still seem to side with them, so apparently this isn't a deal-breaker for you.
Alternatively, if this weird bunch of people declare that a mule is a horse, and organize and swing elections for the "mules are horses" party, and write and pass laws that mules shall be considered horses, and then enforce those laws with the power of the state, you don't get to pretend that everyone knows mules aren't horses and it's silly to even discuss the subject. Clearly, they don't know that mules aren't horses, and enough of them don't know it that they'll send the police to arrest you if you disagree too strenuously. Nor is it silly in such a situation to point out the difference between your claimed principles and observable social and political reality, most especially if you are voting for the "mules are horses" party and urging others to do likewise and sharply disapproving of the "mules are not horses" party.
I disagree. "Pain" and "Harm" are not synonyms. Pain can in fact be harmless. It can even be beneficial, when necessary to achieve a greater good. A spanking hurts, but so does exercise. So does play; I loved playing paintball as a kid, and getting hit by a paintball was way, way more painful than a swat with a belt. Sword fighting with boffers also involved inflicting pain for idle amusement, and it was totally worth it. Blocking a soccer ball with my calf once left me with a huge purple bruise six inches wide, and right when it was fading blocking another soccer ball left a new six-inch bruise inside it, like a bullseye; it made walking notably painful all week, and the week involved a ton of walking. By contrast, no spanking I received ever left bruises, or even lasting pain at all.
Having been a child, I observe that children are foolish and selfish by default, and their reasoning is remarkably deficient; this is often true even of adults. Pain cuts through all of that; children fear pain unreasoningly, instinctively, even when the pain is actually not all that bad. Eventually they learn that the anticipation and fear are actually worse than the sensation itself, and this level of mental maturation is the point at which corporal punishment stops being effective; in my case, it was the point at which I toughed out a spanking with only minimal distress, at which point my parents transitioned to other methods of discipline.
And discipline is, in fact, the point. Spankings weren't done out of anger, and they weren't done arbitrarily. Sure, they secured my submission. My submission needed to be secured, because I was a foolish child who did not understand the value of discipline, and so had to have it imposed on me until I could learn to value it through experience. Learning discipline is obviously good for any child, and the fact that the child does not recognize this in the moment is easily explained by the fact that they are a child, hence of extremely limited understanding and perspective. In hindsight, I recognize that spankings were very good for me, and wish that my parents had used more discipline, not less. I do not think this is any form of false consciousness, but is a rational assessment of my own experience. Maybe it was different for you and your parents; all I can judge is my own experience and the experience of those I observe around me. And as you say, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". When I was a kid, I wanted unlimited chocolate and Nintendo and no school. Now I recognize that these desires were immature, and I had to be taught that by parents who loved me, wanted the best for me, and prioritized my long-term welfare and flourishing over my desires for immediate gratification. How could it be otherwise?
More options
Context Copy link