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 -
Isn't the problem that this is circular? In order for the group to make a determination, you have to ask the people in the group. But knowing who gets to contribute their opinion is exactly the question you're trying to answer in the first place. The "simple" answer is freedom of association, where you can have multiple groups that do or do not overlap, or include each other as subgroups, and which have their own rules that may come from consensus, democracy, a charter, a dictatorship, etc, and members can come and go as they please. But this doesn't work when one group has special privileges that are being fought over.
It kind of seems like that group has a consensus as to who counts as a Sami- a person who speaks a Sami language as a first language and has a recent ancestor who is the same. The lap paragraph looks like a distinctly peripheral group and if a group wants to exclude a periphery, that’s fine, they can be their own thing and it’s up to them to convince the Finnish parliament they should get whatever privileges the Sami get.
Yes, but Democrats and Republicans have very distinct ideas about who counts as a "real" American.
If you asked either side to define US citizenship, you can bet a bunch of their outgroup ain't gonna make the cut. And that in turn means the citizens who then vote on US policy are a subgroup of an already biased sample.
More options
Context Copy link
While I can't speak to the facts on the ground in this particular case, this seems like a good way to end up with a few people speaking for all of the group, and encourages the leadership to exclude as many as possible to reduce competition. I think if the Finnish government is going to do this, it might be a good idea to be more precise about its official Sami representation. For example, if the periphery is excluded, then (if possible) the parliament's scope should be re-assessed to make sure it isn't being given credit for that periphery's population, land, language, unique cultural aspects, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link