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 -
Thanks.
It's a claim about the story they tell themselves, not an actual evaluation of their character.
You're correct that there are people on the fringe who are irredeemably toxic people who just want Republicans to suffer. I think there's a much larger cohort in the middle who can be toxic at times, but justify it to themselves with the rationale I laid out above. And some smaller cohort of idealists who actually try and live up to their principles. I think this dynamic is probably also reflected on the right.
But what I also see is the near hegemony of 'woke thought' or left-leaning answers to social problems. The right would say this is due to censorship, biased media, the deep state, etc and there's certainly some grain of truth to that. But I think it goes deeper than that - I don't think the right currently has a cohesive ideological framework (at least that I can articulate or grasp) for dealing with society's ills in the same way that Reagan did (cut taxes/regulation, business does great and the lower strata of society will prosper along with everyone else) or that woke people do (patriarchal white supremacist ableist society needs to be checked for the lower strata to prosper).
Do you think that's fairer, or still off the mark?
That's fair from my perspective but it's also necessary due to the asymmetry between the left and right.
The left is the side of "do something [that just so happens to make the problem it's claimed to solve worse and enriches my team and hurts my enemies] then never look at the results of that something but use the failure as evidence that the problem was not enough progressivism".
It can and does work piecemeal (even if you think my above description is "uncharitable") - you can support "more money for better teacher pay" and "more enforcement of diversity quotas in employment" and "more money for addict services" and etc. because each of those is ultimately a parasitic drain on private society - parasites are only in competition if the host is terminal.
On the other hand, the right has to come up a positive vision of what society should be and how it should be ordered - can't have a monarchy and some kind of restored republic so the only thing the right can agree on is that the left has to be stopped from doing more things.
More options
Context Copy link
There absolutely is one: "Stop the left from transing your kids, burning down city centers in the name of low-life criminals, pretending it's still 1965 for blacks and using it as an excuse to discriminate against whites, outlawing the internal combustion engine, and generally screwing everything up for everyone."
Whether or not that's TRUE is a separate question. But that is absolutely a cohesive (if minimalist) ideological framework.
Is it cohesive? It strikes me as an ad hoc, reactive stance against perceived Democratic policies. To illustrate, let me invert it:
Whether or not it's a fair assessment is beside the point - it is very much not a cohesive framework. It might descend from one, but as articulated it's just "we're against things our opponents are for". The only unifying theme is that whatever the right does is bad.
I see your point, but I disagree. The idea that "things would be fine if only [outgroup] would stop messing everything up" is cohesive; it provides an explanation for why things are not good. It's not maximally cohesive, because it does not go on to define what "good" is. However, leaving "good" undefined actually leaves room for anyone who is not with or akin to [outgroup] to have their own view of the good, which is both politically advantageous (allows for a big tent with a lot of policy variation), and moral (it maximizes liberty and freedom for [ingroup]). So it's not surprising that it's a schelling point for political organization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link