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 -
What exactly are you pushing me for, when it comes to using “whiteness” to describe the set of effects that being white in a racist society might have on people? I think it’s bad terminology and people should stop using it. Are you asking me to conclude that everyone who uses such terminology actually intends white people harm? Because, if so, I don’t think that’s true. Alternatively, you might be asking me to be outraged, in order to campaign more effectively for people to actually stop. I am not sure if my outrage would actually be helpful, though.
There are a lot of situations in which a more measured argument would be more persuasive. After all, most people who support such terminology believe that outraged people are mistaken about its meaning. By not being outraged and instead taking people at their word, I might well have a better chance of changing people’s minds. I’ve not tried to make this argument, but I am pondering whether I should engage more with people to my left, now that this place is becoming less interesting to me.
I appreciate these questions and that you haven't given up on this particular conversation yet. You're willing to tolerate with my complaints and I can't ask for more. I am asking that you not defend it but asking such is deeply unfair! Especially when you're barely doing so; I think you're more trying to nudge me towards charity to the people using it, but since I find the language indefensible, I can't muster any.
I agree, the majority of people using it don't in-reality intend physical harm (I don't think they'd particularly care if it resulted in harm as long as they're not the target, but people being careless about the ends of their means is a distinct albeit concurrent problem). But I also don't think it's honest to allow that it's about mindset, more than it would be in any other similarly-hateful example. If I wanted to honestly believe it was about mindset- Occam's Razor keeps cutting out the words "why not choose something less blatantly hateful?" Maybe I'm wrong, and somehow these academics legitimately didn't realize that what they're saying is hateful and there's somehow some charitable explanation for why they think the outrage is meaningless when they don't discount outrage from their favored groups. But answers that come to mind for why they wouldn't choose a less hateful term are not kind ones.
Really, my problem is that the weaponized language is a terrible asymmetric weapon, and it would be insane to have you answering that. Is it true that "whiteness" is hateful language? Sure. Neither of us can stop it, even so. Is it true that Robin DiAngelo (and associated crowd) is (are) racist regarding white people and black people? Sure. But I don't get to define "racism," it's not my weapon to wield. Perhaps- no matter how many people use it in horrible, insane ways, I can still use the sane definition; the world suffers for their insanity, but that does not make it completely useless. (Edit: I'm... reinventing the serenity prayer, in a disappointing form, I realize now)
I can't answer the former, since to your left looks quite different than to mine; I haven't had much luck, and I've had some deeply frustrating results. But you're kinder and more careful than I am, and don't have the fetor of an outsider. If you try- good luck.
I certainly agree with the latter clause, though. If/when this is the end of our conversation thread here, I'll finally follow through on my intended departure.
Hey, you know I’ll always hear you out on this subject. I didn’t think I was defending “whiteness” terminology, though, to be honest. My main concern, in this conversation, is the comparison with Hanania. This thread contains a lot of minimisation of his rhetoric. Establishing that Hanania’s pseudonymous writing is worse is important to me because to say otherwise is to misinform about Hanania.
See you in other parts of the internet!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link