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 -
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:
That's not an argument, it's a cliche. Yeah good idea, they shouldn't do it, but guess what? They have! It's too late to call it off now sadly. So in your best American accent, what should the Qatari do now? Give up their laws because Fifa said they could host the world cup?
Howdie partnar! Did you know now that them Qataris don't have no laws against wearin' that rainbow flag? They should just let them fans wear them rainbows and not start no trouble about it! Now I recon this is what mister Nasser Al-Khater, World Cup chief executive, promised them fans back in ol' 2020, so he should be the big man and stick to his words I say. Especially since there's no law against it and so.
Now I don't know now if this all is needed, but I recon' if them Qataris needs to save their faces, they can just say how their Allah made that rainbow as his covenant, amen, and that them tourists are all mighty pleased to celebrate the lords work.
Flawless American accent, and those are good ideas for a peaceful path forward, but they ignore the realpolitiks on the ground - Arabic Muslims have been watching the world embrace homosexuality for the past few decades and telling each other it is an American plot to make the world in our image. They will not pretend it's a symbol of God's love, because they know it is not.
What about if we reverse it - over the past few years there have been a number of controversies in various sports when a Christian or Muslim player - often from Africa or the Middle East - refused to wear a rainbow flag themed jersey or armband. Generally the argument from the pro lgbt side at the time was they should respect their host nation's values and do as they are told. What did you think?
Well, once again, if Qatar don't want any rainbows around they should not have hosted the World Cup. Now they are in the boat, and they have to row it to shore. Once the World Cup is over, they can isolate all they want to protect themselves from evil American plots.
Forcing players to wear rainbow armbands if they don't want to is morally wrong.
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