site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

106
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But then…can I at least have my own awards convention so that I know which books from this year aren’t utter crap?

Probably not. Every time someone picks up the "Don't like it then build your own" gauntlet that's been thrown down, they get deplatformed, smeared, sued, unbanked and destroyed. The mask has slipped. It was never about inclusivity. It was about stealing your toys, smashing them in front of you, and watching you weep.

The mask has slipped. It was never about inclusivity. It was about stealing your toys, smashing them in front of you, and watching you weep.

This is something that anyone interested in Literature has known for awhile, that the "Diversity" agenda was just another tactic in the postmodern Left takeover of the Humanities, that there was no real interest in adding "diverse" authors such as José Saramago, Sei Shonagon, Louise Labe etc etc, but the goal was always the smashing of the 4 Olds and the total ideological takeover of all Lit depts (and outlets).

This is from Mark Bauerlein, who teaches English @ Emory:

"Once the multiculturalists got rid of the old canon, their promise of a richer, fuller curriculum of multiple cultures never materialized. The outcome proves the point. They didn’t want a new and improved humanities curriculum, adding Toni Morrison to Shakespeare, adding wives and mothers to kings and generals in history courses. No, the revolutionaries just wanted to take out the Western/American heritage. The tradition had to go, period. “Diversity” was a dodge, a tactic, a temporary step in the discreditation of the old.

The real goal had already been accomplished, and right in front of us: the demolition of literary tradition, of a Western literary canon and an American literary canon."

/images/16626841365720305.webp

Mod intervention here, I'm afraid. From the rules:

Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.

"As everyone knows . . ."

"I'm sure you all agree that . . ."

We visit this site specifically because we don't all agree, and regardless of how universal you believe knowledge is, I guarantee someone doesn't know it yet. Humans are bad at disagreeing with each other, and starting out from an assumption of agreement is a great way to quash disagreement. It's a nice rhetorical trick in some situations, but it's against what we're trying to accomplish here.

Please avoid stuff like "this is something that anyone interested in literature has known for a while". Phrase it as an opinion or bring up evidence, don't just insist that everyone agrees with you.

I think this is pessimistic. You can easily get tens of thousands of members for a more quality-based fantasy award. You’ll be shit on, yes, but not deplatformed.

Are there any examples of this happening?