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 don't know if you're old enough to remember that day, but...before. Absolutely 100% before.
Just because you have a nice, coherent model of how society works that fits neatly in your head, that doesn't mean your model is correct.
To be sure. But I was alive then and it coheres with my own experiences.
From what I could gather then people were in a haze of confusion and horror for a long time and what crystallized it into what it became was Dubya's legitimately great speech. I'd be willing to stake a lot on the idea that had he spun it a different way than it being an attack on freedom itself the war in Irak may never have happened.
Unfortunately we can't test that. But the reason I believe in my model is that things as shocking as 9/11 I've seen happen elsewhere in countries where a war on terror wasn't in the interests of the ruling class, and those somehow failed to materialize the will for such a thing despite clearly fertile ground.
People wanted to know who was responsible the day of.
Most other countries cannot do what the US did.
Many felt great emotion, who ended up to blame was, is, and will always be up to who holds real power. I bet you could even convince Americans to turn on themselves if CNN kept saying 9/11 was their own fault insistently enough and you had hard power. Mao did that shit many times.
I'll reiterate that Saddam would probably have lived were it not for specific neocon interests. And I don't see how you can reconcile that with the theory of popular sovereignty unless you take the people for a naive mob led around by the nose, which circles you indubitably to my position.
If this was just a huge tantrum of the people, how come it always lands on elite designated targets, and how can you claim the people are a meaningful political entity and not just a mob?
I continue to be unsure of how much you remember, but the invasion of Iraq took place almost two years after 9/11, with a lot of focus on things other than that event to justify the invasion to the people, like WMDs.
The invasion of Afghanistan took place a month after 9/11 and that absolutely was an expression of outrage by the country.
It was an expression of pictures of Osama on TV is what it was. And the fact replacing those pictures with those of some other dude who was very questionably related didn't dull the effect any is what I'm pointing at.
But you're not addressing the core of my argument any here because I don't think you can. Other pictures could have been put there by people who actually hold power, and that's what matters.
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