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 -
Motte, meet bailey indeed. “The QILTBAGs include people who would fuck your kids” is true. “They’re cool with harboring people who would do so” is less likely, and “most of them are invested in it” is almost certainly not.
Care to elaborate on the nuance of “Jews will not replace us?” It seems pretty straightforward, especially when heard at a white-identitarian event.
I don't know if this is true, and I don't think it's very likely, but it would be hilarious to me if "jews" turned into a dogwhistle for "the cultural elite".
More options
Context Copy link
“They’re cool with harboring people who would do so” seems like it is probably true, however. That’s the whole point of this thread.
Now the average gay has no interest in doing so- actually it seems like the average gay man would rather not be in the room with a child, at any point, ever- that’s true, but it certainly seems true that alphabet soup activism pushes organizations towards harboring people who would like to fuck kids, even if not directly, and that the movement as a whole seems to shrug their shoulders about that and write it off as a cost of doing business.
I don't think this is very good evidence of such a write-off. If one thinks that the chanter really is a diddler, and people there know it, and they're covering anyway, then sure. It's those middle links that are missing. Why think that the other marchers are "shrugging their shoulders?"
You have Griffin, who wants to sweep such statements under the rug as a provocative strategy. He doesn't seem to think the chanter is actually a pedophile, just like he hasn't actually killed any mayors. Then there's Fussy, who was uncomfortable with the chant and specifically started an alternate. Again, not exactly shrugging.
It's like going on to /v/ and saying "this guy called himself a faggot! and no one else really argued! the community must be really gay-friendly!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link