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 -
There is no such thing "reverse discrimination" to accept their behavior as anything other than "discrimination" full stop, is to grant the identitarians a victory that they do not deserve.
I've seen you post comments in opposition to idpol many times now but I'm still not sure what you believe. To me the argument that adopting idpol in the U.S. is tantamount to pressing the "defect" button in order to benefit at the expense of other groups who must coexist with you. So the logical response is for those other groups to start pushing "defect" themselves lest their lunches get eaten.
I'm not a fan o white nationalism and I think that "white" is a very incoherent, borderline-nonsensical concept in the U.S. But it seems like as a non-BIPOC person my long term choices are "do nothing and eventually pay reparations" or "start advocating for my racial group or coalition in order to counter enemy idpol tactics." I would prefer a third way. You seem to think there is one, so what is it?
I think the best answer is to reject the idea that these identities exist and get others to do the same. Identity politics are strengthened by people accepting the premise as most ideological constructs do. If you’re living in a country that’s based on religious ideals, playing in that sandbox makes it impossible to break out. If I accept that religion is real and should be a part of state government, then there’s no outside position. I might reject the ideas of Shariah, but if I’m rejecting them to implement the Talmud or Catholic Canons or something, we’ve already agreed on Theocracy, and the legitimacy of theocracy, we’re just arguing about the one on top.
More options
Context Copy link
You're not wrong but where I suspect that where we differ is that I do not see rationality as prerequisite for morality. Contrary to a lot of other users here, I do not think that having a good reason to press the defect button absolves one from the responsibility of having done so. Bad things happen to bad people. Bad things also happen to good people. So it goes.
Like in the old Matthew Brodrick movie, the wining move is not to play.
As an even older saying goes, the game is rigged but it's the only game in town. Or perhaps you'd prefer the more recent "You may not be interested in the culture war, but the culture war is interested in you." "Not playing" is losing without a fight. Insisting that others who oppose the woke identitarians are wrong to play is giving aid and comfort to the woke identitiarians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link