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 real question we are interested in: "we can have an intervention that would make this black man a productive member of society that you don't even have to pay for, or you can pay $30k/year for decades until he grows too old to do crime".
I don't follow. What exactly is that no-cost intervention? Or is the point just that the question is: "Would he still hate black people if they are productive members of society?"
Honestly asking. I don't get what you're saying.
Edit: never mind, I get it now upon re-reading. Leaving this to mark my shame.
Can you please explain for the rest of us? Because I don't entirely understand what that particular example was supposed to demonstrate.
By intervention I meant that hypothetical Soros-funded anti-recidivism experiment that funds all sorts of activists trying various ideas.
The alternative to that is the current situation when violent recidivists are in fact locked up for a long time on taxpayer's dime.
My point is that I'm sure that pretty much nobody, including KKK Grand Dragons, hates black people in a sense that they would actively pay to harm them. So we shouldn't worry that our hypothetical program would receive a pushback from the nonexistent group of people that prefers more black criminals around.
This feels more like a D&D scenario than it does political analysis. You're taking a bunch of groups of people, writing a few-sentence description of why they act a way they do, then pitting the groups against each other based solely on that description to achieve an outcome in a tortured way.
Like, """Soros DAs""" (or, more accurately, progressive city-level politicians) are currently a problem because they hold political power and set policy in ways that don't reduce crime as much as they should. If you had the power to set policy, you could set up a complicated incentive game where you trick your political enemies into solving your problem for you. Or you could just have the police aggressively investigate and arrest criminals, using modern technology, and there'd be much less of a recidivism problem because crime would be swiftly punished and no longer be rewarding. Police departments have lists of habitual offenders, gangs, gang members - just take action against them! There's no scenario where setting up the tortured game is actually worth anything - if you have the power to set the rules under which Soros and his 'activists' play, you can just ignore them. And if you don't have that
And there are a ton of people who actively hate black people in the sense they would pay to harm them. Internet nazis, virulent racists, white supremacist gang members, etc. People who advocate for mass deportation of nonwhites. They're currently, no matter how you count it, less than a few percent of the US population, but they absolutely exist. I'm not sure rebutting that point matters though, it feels like poking a hole in some complicated talmudic argument that's already ten thousand feet above reality.
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
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