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 -
If your standard of evidence was so lax as to take "Just take me trust bro, I believe X and Y", why were you seemingly unwilling to accept it beforehand? You start off accusing me of something with no evidence beyond a lack of, and I quote "a large backlog of posts making this same point at progressives" and only when I point out the absurdity of what you're asking requires me to dox myself and my other accounts did you dial back.
If you want an example where I criticized progressives, I believe Biden's covid era eviction moratorium was a bad thing. While not on the exact level (such a thing was not ruled against yet), Biden had previously suggested he knew it was likely to get struck down and proceeded anyway. He then tried a second plan importantly, it was distinct from the coverage of the original ruling with the same knowledge it was likely to get struck down.
Now in this case procedurally, the rules were followed. A law or policy being implemented that gets struck down (in that case because it is on Congress to pass such laws, not the executive to decide) is par for the course and as long as they obey the courts and cease their actions it's all normal. There is no rule, and can not reasonably be a rule that says "If you think it's >X% that you will be ruled against you can't do a policy but if it's <X% chance you can". But it was still morally incorrect of the Biden admin to do so with the knowledge they were (highly likely at the time and now confirmed to be) overstepping their authority.
Because you wouldn't even give a single example.
See, this is a reasonable and good example. Thank you. Was that so hard?
Next time if you want something, I recommend you ask for it directly instead of vaguely accusing a stranger you do not know, of things you would have no idea about them, and demanding vague and unspecific "evidence" to prove your unfounded accusations wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link