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 -
Quite a number of these sorts of CW issues, especially in Florida recently, seem to take the form of partisans from one side intentionally taking uncharitable readings of (admittedly often vague) laws enacted by the other side's lawmakers.
Legislature bans sexual content in elementary school libraries? Better make sure we clear out the most milquetoast books fitting that description and shout about how they're banning books. They aren't necessarily wrong about how the content limits are to be enforced (doubly so since they'd be the ones to blame if the content was found objectionable), but at the same time I think most reasonable people would agree that the collected works of Hugo finalist Chuck Tingle aren't appropriate for elementary school libraries.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of a better answer than more explicitly (heh) codifying exactly what is and is not allowed. But at the same time there is a reason for the "I know it when I see it" standard: it's not clear that sharp lines can be drawn at all.
This is the good old malicious compliance technique. You want to cut our budgets? We will find the program working with most sympathetic, most photogenic and most poor orphans and start cuts there, while crying "oh why you hate orphans so much!". You want to regulate our content? We find the most innocent content and maliciously misunderstand the rules to ban it, then go and complain to the local press. You want to inspect our programs? We'll ask you to sign off on every typo fix in every booklet, and then complain you're blocking us from fixing typoes because you hate education and want the students to be illiterate. And so on. It's a war, after all, even if just a culture war.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a particularly astute comparison given that extant "obscenity" laws are only constitutional (if at all) based on a "community standards" approach. I have a vague memory of a case where someone (in Utah maybe?) was charged with obscenity and beat the charge by showing evidence that people in the community watched more porn than they cared to publicly admit. Post-Ashcroft, obscenity laws are what remain to regulate stuff like computer-generated or hand-drawn pornography that people wish was illegal, but is in many contexts protected by the First Amendment.
The alternative to explicitly codifying everything down to the letter, is to have a homogeneous community culture (or, perhaps, to have such a radically heterogeneous culture that no single group's values ever meaningfully interfere with the others). What we have in the U.S. today is, I think, increasingly just two cultures, violently competing for the upper hand. Each of these cultures is cheerfully authoritarian, with little inclination toward compromise (and, maybe, less such inclination with each passing day). Without recognizable "community standards" to govern these things, indeed with substantial numbers of people being directly contrarian about the very existence of community standards, I'm not sure that even explicit codification will suffice as a solution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link