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 -
The entire point of the cathedral is that academia, govt, media, etc aren't explicitly maliciously coordinating, but are made up of people who mostly genuinely try to advance progressive causes, gain personal influence or have 'impact, etc. If the cathedral decides something, that means it's the headline of a few NYT articles, several think tanks have published reports on it, it's buzzing on twitter, etc. And that isn't true of "trump is no longer a threat, so we'll unban him".
This claim could mean multiple things. One: a specific, hidden, powerful person believes "Trump is no longer a threat to <my hidden network>, therefore we should reinstate him so he can take attention from potential threats. Therefore I'm directing <hidden contact A> to talk to <person B in twitter/facebook/etc> to unsuspend trump".
Two: A consensus develops among various media people and progressive activists that trump isn't that much of a threat anymore. Some progressive ideologues inside twitter/facebook/etc get that idea, and then unsuspend trump because they believe he will soak up attention from other threats to progressivism.
Three: A consensus develops among ... that trump isn't a threat anymore. This diffuses to progressives at twitter. As a result, they put less continuous pressure on trump saying suspended, and he gets unsuspended. This differs via the lack of explicit planning or desire to use him as sort of a neutered opposition.
Four: There isn't really a consensus that trump isn't a threat anymore, but the cathedral is paying less attention to the trump threat, they're more worrying about desantis, SCOTUs, cops, whatever. As a result, less pressure, internal and external, are on twittter/facebook to keep trump suspended, so more 'centrist' heads prevail inside twitbook and trump gets unsuspended.
Claim 1 doesn't seem likely. There aren't any signs of it in e.g. the twitter files (where twitter consistently resisted external influence), it's not consistent with other secondhand reports from the internals of social media moderation, and it's not really consistent with how random and ineffective social media political moderation is.
Claim 2 doesn't seem likely (3 as well), because there isn't consensus among the cathedral that trump doesn't have disruption potential! Again, the cathedral is 'the media, academia, govt, and people around them". Many of them are still very worried about trump. Less worried than four years ago? Arguable, but that isn't 'doesn't think he has disruptive potential'.
Claim 3 and 4 are, crucially, not based on a deep evaluation that, with certainty, "he does not have serious disruption potential", but a sense that he's somewhat less of a threat.
More options
Context Copy link