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 -
In Defense of Wrath and Forgiveness
Anger and the rest of its conceptual cluster (wrath, outrage, hatred, etc.) are not in themselves wrong. They are the appropriate, healthy emotional response to a violation of justice. The virtue of anger is that it provides drive, energy, and motivation to correct or avenge a wrong. A passionless man is not moved by injustice, but instead becomes the proverbial "good man" that does nothing, leading to the triumph of evil. The common error in their manifestation is that of anger unchecked (or insufficiently checked) by reason and temperance, which frequently leads to further acts of injustice. Anger is a good servant in its proper context, but a bad master.
Forgiveness is a setting aside, or letting go, of anger that has outlasted its usefulness. It has nothing to do with whether the target of that anger no longer "deserves" condemnation; even the noble act of killing Hitler was insufficient to balance the scales of the tremendous evil he inflicted on the world during his lifetime, and he is no longer available on this earth to pay down that debt. The Holocaust was an event of great and terrible evil, an injustice that beggars the imagination, and for that, anger is the proper emotional response. But what corrective good can that anger serve, most of a century later? With perhaps one or two very minor exceptions, the perpetrators of that evil are long gone.
Anger at historical injustices, where there is no just outlet for that drive, is purely corrosive and--best case--harms only the bearer. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Forgiveness is therefore necessary to purge the poison of pointless anger, and turn instead to more productive pursuits. Forgiveness is not about denying the evil of past injustice, or forgetting the lessons that may be learned. To the extent that past evils may be educational, they should be heeded to avoid future pitfalls. But if they cannot be corrected or justly avenged, then angry fervor should be set aside.
Forgiveness is also conceptually separate from mercy--the denial or reduction of punishment justly earned. One may forgive and still punish; in fact, forgiveness is often necessary to avoid over-punishing beyond the demands of justice. This is no contradiction--once you are in a position to punish, the zealous drive of anger has most likely accomplished the good uses it can serve. Forgiveness is also healthy at any point in the process--it is a setting aside of anger, not responsibility. Using forgiveness as an excuse to avoid correcting injustice is still wrong.
More options
Context Copy link