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 -
"The Founding Fathers were racist" is not a trivial statement in this case. It is very much an important idea that both sides grapple with in their critiques and rebuttals of said critiques. I don't know how you can say that this is a case of "Internet literalism" when it's a crucial point in the CRT edifice. Hell, this is literally one of the basis facts of the 1619 project. Rufo would 100% deliberately trash this because it constitutes a major attack on his stance.
It's not trivial, but it also isn't an automatic win. "Racism is evil, so now that we've established that Jefferson is racist, you'd better not mention him in a positive context ever again unless my side approves of it" is not legitimate. And that's what "Jefferson is racist" usually means.
Okay, but Rufo is the one who decided to take that stance. If Rufo had narrowed or moderated his stance against CRT, he wouldn't be subject to the weakness of his current stance. A bad argument in favor of a good thing (as many here would see it) is still a bad argument.
Taking a stance, outside a few weird rationalist forums, implicitly means taking a stance against central examples and claims, even if that's not the literal meaning of your words.
Your previous comment makes it sound like you agree with me that it is a central claim. Your rebuttal here makes no sense in light of that.
Central examples of racism are ones that we're supposed to treat as ultimate evil. Noncentral examples aren't. Claiming that Jefferson is a racist implies a central example, but he's only a noncentral example.
If I quoted a person from the 17th century who said "white people are literal devils, evil in mind and body", you would 100% tell me that this person was racist. Why is Jefferson a non-central example when his belief is only slightly out of step with modern anti-black racists?
Because Jefferson did enough important other things that saying "Jefferson is ultimate evil, so we should ignore everything else he did" is disingenuous. But you're calling him racist to imply exactly that.
Yeah, but that's not Rufo's initial stance. Rufo is the one alleging that CRT is wrong about everything, here's Robinson giving an example about CRT being correct and having an impact on how the mainstream history is treated. Rufo is obligated to back down on a false claim. If he doesn't want to do it with an interview from the "enemy", then he should have been more careful in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link