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 -
Yes, I think this is broadly correct. The ADL as an organisation can't know anything, because it doesn't have a mind. People who work for the ADL can know things, and there I would very doubtful that anyone working for the ADL is explicitly thinking about increasing anti-semitism in order to increase their relevance and thus power. If nothing else, the cognitive dissonance required to believe that while also believing in the ADL's mission would be painful enough that I would expect anybody doing that to self-delude their way out of it. It is possible that some people working for the ADL believe that anti-semitism is already covertly present and that making it more visible is important to fighting it, but that is relevantly different to deliberately trying to produce it in order to still have a job fighting it.
More generally I think that, as a heuristic, you should usually believe people when they tell you what they're trying to achieve. Outside of the few, relatively rare cases of direct deception, most of the time when people tell you what they want and why, they believe it themselves on some level. It may not be the only reason for their actions, and there may be levels of hypocrisy and self-delusion because those are just endemic to the human condition, but outright conspiratorial deception is extraordinarily rare.
Stated mission.
Much like with anti-racism groups, I suspect the actual mission is closer to "acquire money, status and power for the favoured in-group". I don't know that this is explicitly told to members, but rather it's obvious that those things can be gained by spuriously linking things to your cause and it's natural to want those things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link