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 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