site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Progressives object when we ban it, therefore they are either doing it or, even if not, want to do it" ignores the general inanity of the culture war. If progressives tried to ban "super-child-killing-assault-rifles", conservatives might rightfully object because "super-child-killing-assault-rifles" do not exist, so what's being banned might be normal or useful guns, and at any rate 'assault rifles' and 'kids dying from guns' is not a significant enough issue to care about. Similarly, progressives might believe that 'trans child grooming' is rare, but object to attempts to ban it because they might target 'lgbt sex education for 16 year olds' or 'drag shows in general'. But most of it is just blatantly stupid reactions, like one high school in Rustbelt, Alabama removing a nsfw book from its library and ten stories in the next week about CONSERVATIVE CENSORSHIP. The libs are mad here, and mad for a stupid reason - but there's no real basis for that objection, the one nsfw book in a school library that'd be read by two children total over the next decade plays no role whatsoever in liberal goals, good or evil, it's just incoherent propaganda.

He countered by saying that if it's not happening it shouldn't be an issue to ban it, but progressives do protest the idea of a ban

People in politics aren't acting 'reasonably', you can't make inferences of the form 'reasonably, this shouldn't be an issue, but it is, therefore my (reasonable) opponents do have a deep interest in this', because your opponents aren't reasonable.

Sorry but I'm not buying it. Given the choice between believing you and "my lying eyes", I'm believing my eyes because you seem to be unironically invoking the old Merited Impossibility trope. "It's not happening and it's not going to happen but if it is happening you fuckers deserve it." Forgive me if I find that less than convincing.