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 -
See, counterpoint to ContraPoints, let's look at the man who did more than anything to make JP hit it big: Joe Rogan is the biggest positivity merchant active today. He introduces his guests universally as either "my friend X" or "the great and powerful Y." He rarely challenges his guests on personal grounds, occasionally on political or technical ones but never "Mike Tyson, I love you champ, but did you really rape that girl? Do you think that's forgivable?" He's about self-improvement, about talking to great people about how you can be great too, Joe thinks we can all be heroic athlete-warrior-comedian-mystics who take DMT in the sauna to commune with the aliens after dining on elk meat or whatever. When I listen to Joe Rogan, I feel like an insider, and the negativity all feels directed at someone else. The criticism that he levels against the lazy, the fat, the improvident, the snowflakes, the fearful feels like it doesn't include me; even if I suspect that I could do with a little more Goggins and a little less Taco Bell in my life. I've never felt personally offended or attacked by anything Joe Rogan has said into my right airpod while I worked out or did the dishes. I guess it doesn't meet the technical definition of "hugboxing" because it can have negativity directed vaguely outward, but if you feel like the ingroup for Rogan and his guest it does nothing but butter you up.
Where when I listened to Slate's DoubleX Gabfest or whatever they call it now, I constantly felt my ego under attack. I'm a 30 year old straight white man who looks like a 90s romantic comedy antagonist. I'm male, pale, and probably getting stale too. I'm clearly Slate's putative outgroup, the boogeyman that every bad thing that happens to the proud Queer/WOC hosts of the podcast can be pinned on. I'm responsible by identity for the economy, every bad sex partner the host has ever had, every bad meal the host has ever eaten, and human suffering more generally. If it made her cry, she'll find a way to pin it on "CIShetero white republican men." And when I KNOW I'm a CIShetero white republican man, it's a pretty negative experience to be the "THEY" in a conspiracy theory.
Compare, as you did below, to Q. You talk about Q as being negative, but I think Q is successful because it boosts the egos of its followers. When I think about conspiracies I think about my friends who are very into them, and one commonality among the Q/Infowars/MyPillow types in my life is that they've had hard lives, largely through things they more or less perceive as out of their control. Bad things have happened to them: a son addicted to drugs, a daughter seduced by a much older neighbor, working hard and having talent but never getting ahead because of divorce and confusing tax laws. As Scott argued cogently in Epistemic Minor Leagues, Q gives you a sense of importance and control for people that lack it day to day. Q might be negative to adrenochrome-addled pedo elites, but simply by listening to it you're among the righteous. The great day of the rope is always understood by the follower to be a day of ascendance for the follower, and destruction to the follower's enemies. Which is just a more extreme and explicit version of the same ingroup-positive/outgroup-negative flow of a Slate podcast or of Joe Rogan. Slate might not openly dream of herding cishetero white men into camps, but it doesn't hugbox them either.
This is just a particular manner of talking though, it doesn't really mean anything.
This just describes podcasts generally though, the hosts and the guests are always buds and just chatting and don't really fight or even disagree much.
Also, I can't tell if this is a joke or not? "I am ingroup for right leaning podcast. I am outgroup for left leaning podcast. Therefore, left leaning podcast is mean and toxic, and right leaning podcast is cuddly and beautiful and universal love". Like, you explicitly point out that "The criticism that he levels against the lazy, the fat, the improvident, the snowflakes, the fearful feels like it doesn't include me;" - because it ... doesn't include you - and similarly, a straight white leftist male listening to the slate pod understands that they aren't "CIShetero white republican men", and that they are the friend and they're criticizing someone else?
(also: criticisim and dislike is good, because there are flaws that need correcting & very flawed things that need to be gotten rid of)
I assume due to the date that you found this via the AAQC roundup, read the parent comment I'm replying to. He posits that Leftists are nice hugboxers and Rightists are hard meanies and that impacts their popularity. I'm pointing out that depends where you stand, I don't really see that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link