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 -
This seems particularly baffling, because even today you still find quarters that feel the plebiscite was a mistake, that it was harmful to marginalised people, or that it was in some way inappropriate to have a vote on a 'rights matter'. We had that argument back in 2016, and now it's being made again for the 2023 indigenous voice referendum. See, for instance:
I confess I find this a very troubling and anti-democratic attitude - if rights are so important that it's wrong to hold a public debate or vote about them, then rights can only be identified and implemented by some other body, smaller than the public as a whole, and that way lies oligarchy.
The government is currently trying to change the way referendums work, incidentally. Specifically, in the past , the government would fund a public debate on the issue, which requires funding both sides. The logic is fairly straightforward - for any issue consequential enough as to require a referendum, there must be a robust public debate, which requires an informed populace aware of the best arguments for each side. If one side is vastly wealthier than the other, this might be difficult. So the government funds a debate, as it did last time. The current government wants to change this.
I don't think it's hard to guess what their motive might be here - they don't want to spend any money on or give any publicity to the "no" side of the debate. The Albanese government is not interested in treating the indigenous voice referendum as a serious debate between two sides, both of which are reasonable and whose best points should be heard, so that the Australian people make an informed choice. One imagines that if they did give money to the "no" side as well, they would be raked over the coals for funding a racist position. One also imagines they know that the "yes" side is much richer and has far more media reach than the "no" side.
This just strikes me as another example of an increasing lack of patience with or interest in the public voice, or in democratic processes overall. If an issue is important, if it is good, if it is about human rights, then why would you ever subject it to anything as capricious as democracy?
More options
Context Copy link