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 -
As a Brit, the level of hate Markle is getting seems appropriate and actually reassuring. I'm slightly disappointed (if not surprised) that Americans of the relevant political stripe aren't on board (although I suppose they are Republicans after all). I'll do my best at explaining this although you'll need to start with the understanding that the symbolic is Important (I expect a materialist will not understand this, or anything else outside the material).
The Crown is to symbolism in the UK as the constitution is to law in the USA. More important, in fact; in the UK, the Crown is (almost literally) the constitution, and literally the head of state, and literally the head of the church. What's more, Markle was invited to join the royal family as a princess. This is a formal position of very high rank which has responsibilities. In America, the gravity of that office would be somewhere below President but above Ambassador. Another point of reference is that the armed services swear their allegiance to the crown. Joining the royal family at that level is much like joining the military - you swear an oath, and you have strict codes of conduct you have to follow.
The closest analogue I can think of to attacking the royal family in public as a princess would be a newly sworn general publicly handing military secrets to an enemy. The enemies of the crown will use what Markle said against it politically just as sure as the enemies of the state would use troop deployments (or whatever) against the state militarily.
Historically, the political substructure of the English especially is based around the lessons learned from the civil war. Although the reasons were numerous, at least one cause of the war was Puritans drumming religious animosity against the crown for minor aesthetic heresies. Although few would be thinking of the connection consciously, the cultural memory that this must never happen again is bedded deep. So it's not surprising that Markle, through her words and deeds, is perceived not merely as an irritant but an enemy.
Uh, the rank and file republicans in the USA don’t generally like Meghan Markle very much. She’s viewed as an annoying woke harridan who should stop claiming all of her problems are from anti-black racism when she is a non-central example of being black, to put it mildly.
Do they have the level of hate for her that British people do? No. That’s in large part because she’s less relevant to anything they care about.
I totally agree, and I'll just say it: she isn't black. So she's not only being that girl who claims all the problems she faces are due to evil people oppressing her, she isn't even a member of the group she claims to be oppressed as. So, she's a charlatan, basically.
On top of that she's a nobody who thinks she's super important (I never heard of her at all before the marriage), which is always grating.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link