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's this chain of logic I feel like I've sniffed out - don't think I've ever seen it laid out all at once (so it makes me suspicious that it's an uncharitable leap of logic on my part, but I'll still venture posting...) - but seems to undergird a good deal of group ("oppressor-oppressed") dynamics in modern politics:
The fruits of oppression, justice demands, must be forfeit.
Groups naturally can differ in terms of mean talents or abilities. Taken together, these imply that:
Unless something good that an oppressor-group has can be proven to be 100% nature and 0% nurture (which is a standard that can never be met) it is morally tainted, presumed illegitimate, and must be taken from them. Conversely, anything good that an oppressed-group has is doubly legitimate: not only is it the fruit of their natural superiority shining through (it can't be illegitimate, as that would mean that the oppressed-group is the Real Oppressors, as this is a binary status) but shining through despite the oppression! Likewise, anything bad that an oppressor-group has is doubly-legitimate, as they couldn't make up for it despite all the oppressing of their rivals, and anything bad an oppressed-group has can also be presumed illegitimate, probably the results of the oppression.
This makes for a supremacist's ratchet, quite frankly. Once a group has the brand of "oppressor" upon it, its only just place is equal-to-or-less-than everyone else, about everything, probably forever.
This is particularly clear in boys-versus-girls at school: if any measure by which boys outdo girls is presumed to be sexist, or measuring the fruits of sexism, and so in order for justice to be satisfied, this situation needs to be undone, while any measure by which girls outdo boys can be presumed honest, showing their natural superiority - well, what is the only possible way this can end?
i don't think the article claims that girls do better because they're just 'naturally superior'. yes, boys neurologically develop differently than girls, but that doesn't mean they're 'worse'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link