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 -
I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's a re-framing of issues for me to say "The party will achieve these goals" in spite of your insistence that 'Some other arbitrarily-chosen goals are more important'. But fortunately for us the aforementioned convention is now over. It's also wrong to assume that the preferences of single-issue voters for example don't matter, and that a political change is only worthwhile if it's sweeping (Good the enemy of perfect etc etc). If literally the only difference between 2 major parties was the guns, that still represents the loss of lifestyle, tens of thousands of (Canadian) dollars, food procurement, etc. If only difference between the GOP and the Democrats in the USA was that the Democrats wanted to ban all cars, would you have a pithy expression for people who rejoice when they are allowed to keep them?
Anyways based on your tone I'm presuming you are preoccupied with culture war issues. In that case the CPC affirmed their intent to ban trans medical procedures for all children. Getting rid of diversity hiring practices, keeping freedom of speech. Pretty much all of the main culture war threads.
It's not my insistence. It's the context the question was in. I very purposefully made that distinction clear and cited that context. If you don't want to engage with the question within that context I am very correct in stating that you are reframing the question. Insisting that you are not doing exactly what you are doing is very dishonest and transparent.
And without radical change none of these things will happen since these things are long embedded in the institutions themselves. It's rather tiresome to have to explain this to people when the example of this happening has already been given and you refuse to acknowledge it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link