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 -
Thanks for writing this up. I wish I could comment on the play itself but unfortunately I haven't read it.
Ok, but... which side is he saying this to? Would you accept a rightist Cymbeline who told you "ok, you proved your point, but now it's time to let MTFs in women's sports and institute permanent DEI quotas and all the rest of it", just imagine him asking for total capitulation on whatever CW issue is nearest and dearest to your heart. Would you be ok with that?
If not, then why would you expect leftists to accept a leftist Cymbeline?
Conflicts always happen for a reason. It's not like people are stupid and they're just failing to realize that they could, like, not fight each other or something. Most CW issues aren't very amenable to compromise either - there's no physical piece of territory that you can split up 50/50. You either accept MTFs as women or you don't, you either pay reparations or you don't, etc. That's part of what makes the conflicts so interminable.
I am neither an orthodox leftist nor an orthodox rightist, so I don't want to pretend I can speak for anyone. But I think the obvious flaw in your theory is that avoiding total capitulation through partial accommodation is sort of the whole point. In an existential struggle, we can be certain that one side will cease to exist. I would have liked to see Leftists respond to the 2016 Trump victory in a way that didn't lead me to link that one Brecht poem constantly. And I would like to see Republicans respond to the 2020 Trump loss by coming to terms with the facts, rather than denying them.
And to be frank, I disagree with the idea that...
For the most part, we had compromises on most of these positions that were broadly perceived as "good enough" in the Washington Consensus period of 1992-2008. People who want to transition are allowed to, with their own funds, and will be accepted or rejected on an ad hoc social basis. Most high concept and many lowbrow sit coms had a [now considered insensitive] very special episode on the topic. Affirmative Action is accepted in a limited way, but not at a scale that would present significant problems to advancement for talented white people.
One could say those weren't stable equilibria, that it was a slippery slope to a decision one way or the other. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure by what mechanism to disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link