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 -
I know this is probably the wrong place to get into a quibble over definitions, but I really don't think "one guy using his personal social media account to back a boycott and encouraging his fans to do likewise" can reasonably be described as "propaganda". I'm aware that the moderators of this subreddit consider it (reasonably) as clear enemy action, but that doesn't answer my question: not everything which is clear enemy action is propaganda. If Anthony Bass had been arrested for beating up a trans person because they were trans, that would also be "clear enemy action" in the "current culture war", but it wouldn't be propaganda. From context it doesn't even seem like Bass was using any memes to further his cause, it sounds like he was just saying "I endorse this cause and you should too". For reference, a pro-LGBTQ meme would be something like "#lovewins" or "born this way" or "trans women are women", while an anti-LGBTQ meme is the "groomer" accusation: it doesn't sound like Bass was saying "if you drink Bud Light you're a groomer", which absolutely would be a meme.
I think /u/QuantumFreakonomics's contention that it was a bit hysterical to frame "a private citizen endorsing a boycott which is contrary to woke orthodoxy" as "propaganda" was fair. The fact that I know what the mods were doing from a game-theoretic perspective doesn't change my assessment that it's hysterical and melodramatic to frame it as such.
The shared message in question isn't just saying not to drink bud light or shop at Target. It never says the g-word, but the phrase "shoving it in children's faces" has pretty unambiguous implications.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link