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 -
Yes, it would be rude for a guests in Qatar to walk around in drag and chant "Are there any men here ready to fuck!?". But that's pretty far from wearing an armband with a rainbow on.
You are going into a country which steadfastly refuses to tolerate homosexuality - which considers tolerance of homosexuality a deliberate attempt to diffuse their culture into western homogeneity - and displaying your contempt and disrespect for their culture on every arm.
A rainbow armband is not an expression of contempt and disrespect for Qatari culture. And once again: If Qatar doesn't want any rainbows anywhere, they can just not host the World Cup. Inviting people and then policing details in their dress is rude.
Why are you pretending you think this is about clothing? That it is simply a multicoloured strip of fabric signifying nothing? Or that your issue is their fashion policing being rude? You aren't stripping away ephemera to get down to the essence of the debate, you are stripping away the essence of the debate so you can get down to the ephemera.
I'm not pretending that this is about clothing. Clearly there's symbolism in the rainbow armband, I'm happy to acknowledge that.
I'm feeling like this debate isn't going anywhere, it mostly seems to be you making uncharitable assumptions about me. If you want to know anything concrete I'm happy to answer you, but I've stated my position and I don't see that you have argued against it.
Yeah I have something concrete I'd like from you - evidence that this conversation has been mostly me making uncharitable assumptions about you. I have made a single assumption - that you are resorting to sophistry on this topic because you know the position you back is contrived. I'll admit it is uncharitable, but it also seems more accurate now than it did when I made it, and it seemed pretty accurate then.
But ok, only 50% of this debate has been you making uncharitable assumptions about me. It feels like more when you are on the receiving end.
And it continuous. Seriously man, try to show some kindness.
Anyway, since this seems to be only meta-discussion and no actual discussion at all, I'm out.
A) assuming you are American is not uncharitable lol, thinking it is is not very kind.
B) I wasn't assuming you were American, I was saying that demanding foreign countries have the same values you do is American. Also not kind, but we have the reputation for a reason.
C) charity is not feigning obliviousness to bad arguments, that just gives control of every conversation to its worst actors. I laid out my position clearly and you changed the topic - first by... ignoring the symbolism (I guess, if you weren't pretending) and then by acting like I won't let you have a conversation about the topic because I called out one bad argument.
It is fine if you don't want to talk about it any longer - just don't reply, nobody will think less of you. But don't act like I won't, because I am happy to. But you have to explain why the Qatari should allow a symbol of support for behaviour they have criminalised.
Literally my first post:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link