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 -
It's better than the opposite happening for sure. Although I think the whole depicting the prophet, at least in the states, isn't an establish route of canceling. Or at least if you want to establish a pattern can you find a past successful canceling over something like this?
If not outright "cancelling," it's the source of extreme skittishness. There's the famous instance of South Park intentionally poking at this issue (https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Muhammad) by including Muhammed amongst a group of superheroes. This episode cannot be found on HBOMax, Comedy Central or the official South Park website (run by Comedy Central).
My priors are that anyone who doesn’t vociferously apologize and try to make some costly signal of disowning the person who decided to depict Mohammed is laying a trap in some way.
In this particular case, you'd be disowning two people who lived in the 14th and 16th centuries.
More options
Context Copy link
I find this an incredibly confusing take. I just find those people to be cowards, it's a much simpler reasoning. What trap are the setting?
edit: It's impossible for me to believe the group of who broadly support piss Christ, which I support too in its being legal and allowed if not very artistically interesting, have some kind of hang up of unnecessarily offending religious people.
It's okay to offend Christians, particularly in the American context, since as we know they are all bitter clingers, racist rednecks with guns and Confederate flags who want to round up all the gays for torture conversion camps. They're the white majority so they're in power and it's punching up. Anyway, this is art and it's not your fault if the knuckle-draggers can't tell the difference.
It's not okay to offend other faiths because they are non-white, non-majority, and have been oppressed by the Christians in the past (Crusades, the Holocaust) and you can show how tolerant and inclusive and virtuous you are by supporting them and being good allies.
More options
Context Copy link
‘Hang up of unnecessarily offending religious people’ isn’t how I would describe my mental model of these people- more like genuine fear of terrorism coupled with a twinge of guilt about treading on the feelings of brown non-Christians.
On the other hand red tribers who hold Mohammed drawing competitions then stand around with their guns ready for an attack.
It's in the rational self-interest for someone who feels they will have a guaranteed place and privileges (even under a society of 'enemy') to feel a genuine fear of losing them because they sided with the 'enemy' too enthusiastically.
Yes, that's what you'd expect supply-side political action to look like. It should be revealing that the demand-side tribe's guns all belong to the supply-side tribe, this is why military organizations code red.
The meta-level of "Blue tribe's enemy is Red tribe, Red tribe's enemy is external" is "the demand-side tribe's enemy is the supply-side tribe, but the supply-side's enemy is external". Which is why the supply side's tactics are confrontational to things that code "external" (as in, that one should not say anything because their political enemies could get violent) in a way the demand side's aren't.
Uh, do you mind restating your thesis in smaller words? It’s clear as mud and maybe defining your terminology would help.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I, uh, assume the "trap" involves the "fuck around and find out" strategy of dealing with angry people who try to do something about the depictions, a la that incident at an art museum where a shooting was stopped by another guy with a gun.
More options
Context Copy link
IDK anything about a trap (or really what that guy meant), but I don't see them as cowards. That's just not the hill they want to literally die on. Someone who cared more about free speech might well decide to risk death on that hill though, and that's commendable.
If you're in a land where it's illegal and surrounded by people who suspect you're with the guy whose depicting the big Moh, sure self preservation yourself. If you're in the united states and no one is even asking you, and your reasoning for doing it is to avoid offense, yeah, that's not the same situation.
Who are we talking about here? I think the college president can't come out and say "that's dangerous," but she doesn't want to risk her staff, so she instead says that it's offensive. Maybe she's good at doublethink and has even internalized that. In the end we probably agree but I think there's still an element of danger (if much smaller) here in the US as well.
However, the backdrop is that the State (and the local social majority) won't back her up. Which is why regime-aligned speakers who threaten her staff all the same do not get shut down when a threat comes in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Followed by a two parter where Tom Cruise wants to steal Muhammed's 'goo', which ended with comedy central censoring the image of Muhammed and bleeping the entirety of the boys' ending monologue (which explained the magical power of violence).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link