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 -
instead of nosediving it looks more like the polarity was just inverted.
No. No, it really hasn’t.
You had entire regions of the country with double sets of amenities just so whites could avoid contact with “colored people.” If you know of somewhere with Black-only bathrooms or streetcars, please let me know so I can narc on them to the ACLU.
What about safe spaces, does that count?, and then we have Affirmative action, segregated graduation ceremonies.
More options
Context Copy link
Here
Please let me know how that goes.
Jesus Christ. Is this legal because it's...consensual? Surely someone has challenged it, because especially for public schools, it has to be a violation...
I have to ask at this point...does this change your estimation of progressives at all?
This happens just about weekly with you in particular, pretty much since I've noticed your username kicking around. Someone will mention some outrageous thing some progressives somewhere are doing, you'll immediately throw a flag on the play, insisting that you can't believe any progressive would actually be doing such, then you'll be dogpiled with examples, and you disappear from the thread.
Not really--but not in the way you're thinking. Believe it or not, I already have a pretty low opinion of extreme progressives. I'm throwing a flag because reversed stupidity is not intelligence, and claiming whites are "reversing the polarity" of 50s-era segregation is still objectively false. Even though the truth was much worse than I expected.
Clearly, in this case, I was too hasty. Normally, I try to be more clear that only a Sith deals in absolutes. I find it quite annoying when users throw out some random generalization about how the Other Team consists of degenerates and hypocrites. Especially when such generalizations are based on zero to one data points.
Here's another case where I wasn't careful enough. I wanted to convey that the OP was making unusually strong claims about toxicity, but in doing so, I doubted "anyone" would cop to it. What a blunder! Of course some jackass activist would say something close enough to the claim! And yet, I stuck around in that thread and made my position more clear. I'd like to think I make a point of doing that, of admitting I am wrong.
The frustrating thing here is that it sounded like you're giving an example of what constitute a "reversed polarity", only to follow up with "it's still objectively false" when the exact criteria from your example are met. If thus doesn't change your mind, what would?
Because I was complaining about magnitude more than the direction.
Hydro was correct that "actual discrimination against nonwhites has taken a nosedive." I recognize that (state) discrimination against whites has gotten more socially acceptable. This is a strong example. It is also orders of magnitude weaker than Jim Crow. It's like using "literal genocide" in trans politics: suicide is not the same as mass murder.
Neo-segregated schools are more common than I'd thought possible. I managed to live my whole life in South Carolina, Texas, and Oklahoma, without running into the idea. Yeah, it was naïve of me. That wasn't possible for segregated bathrooms, water fountains, train cars, building entrances.
More options
Context Copy link
Then why did he give that very specific example of what would constitute reversed polarity? Why did he claim that's something the ACLU would act on? He could have just made the argument about the treatment of black people under Jim Crow.
Also, the problem is that segregation is taught to be a massive moral horror in itself. What's more, that's a stance I agree with. If progressives want to say "racial discrimination is fine, actually, as long as everyone's treated fairly", or " we actually always supported 'separate but equal'", we can discuss it from there, but they do actually have to say it, not hide in the statements implications while maintaining plausible deniability.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A related question - do examples like these (where apparently prestigious or large institutions have something batshit going on) change your calculus on progressive power?
I think I share the basic intuition that most people, even quite left-leaning, aren’t actually insane, and are quite reasonable in discussion. But I think I depart from your viewpoint in that I think there are a lot more people that just regurgitate progressive shibboleths without really thinking it through (as I know quite a few, and I’m not even in the US!), who moderate their internal opinions if they are given a chance to actually review what they say; and that I’m not incredibly surprised by incidents like the above happening, because the insane wing of the movement has shown itself to be able to punch way above its weight in various ways.
(For what it is worth, my read is that this well of power and - to borrow a word - privilege is running increasingly low now, and it was never to a point where the ideological capture threatened the entirety of society - just the most obnoxiously vocal parts.)
I suppose what I’m asking is - what are you continuously surprised by?
More options
Context Copy link
You do this a lot, particularly lately. I occasionally disagree with your pushback, but in every case I can recall, your pushback has been much, much closer to the truth and/or more reasonable than the people you've responded to. I'd imagine it's fairly thankless work, but I appreciate it quite a bit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm guessing the legal fig leaf is "Black Affinity Housing residents, representing all diverse identities." So they don't explicitly say "black people only" or even "no straight white males." Everyone understands that's what it means in practice, but to challenge it you'd have to bring a lawsuit with evidence that they have demonstrated racial bias in their admissions, which would require first of all a sufficient number of white men to apply solely for the purpose of creating a legal case. And I'd further guess that seeing a spate of white men applying, they'd demand a "statement of black affinity" that mouths all the right words about wanting to learn how to unpack their white privilege and engage in anti-racist work, etc. Assuming you then get a few white guys who'd pass that filter, they'd accept a couple and then would be able to claim they are not practicing racial discrimination.
Not a whole lot different from how businesses who wanted to discriminate back in the day would invent various devices to keep out black people or women without saying "no blacks or women."
Is this where disparate impact comes in?
"This housing isn't exclusively for whites, just for people who happen to check all these extremely white-coded boxes" wouldn't fly, would it?
It probably wouldn't fly when/if it eventually reaches a court.
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
More options
Context Copy link