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 -
Although not as qualified, as you said, on paper, our hypothetical Ebonics Granny from the hood has real life experience and the resultant common sense that would bring a refreshing perspective to either the VP or SCOTUS that Kamala and Ketanji just...don't. And I'd almost-not-joking trust her more as president too, because she might be more likely than Kamala to be aware of just how much she didn't know. All I'm saying is let's hear her out
I agree with this point. If the goal of appointing these people is to enfranchise Black people whose opinions are marginalized in society then I don't see how putting someone who does not at all have the experience of those groups into power accomplishes this. It's like the recent immigrants taking the affirmative action spots in ivy leagues. The disconnect between the purported motivation and the outcome achieved along with the total lack of interest in aligning these things betrays that the motivation is not sincere.
What is the motivation, then? These people don’t literally believe blacks are magic, and affirmative action doesn’t on average do anything except make everything very slightly worse(and piss people off).
If steel manning I think the motivation is something like that there is some value in young disenfranchised black kids seeing that their skin color is not alone an impenetrable barrier. Are their voices actually being heard because a rich lady who happens to be black gets a position? Maybe not. But it's not nothing to know that if they escape poverty they too can aspire to any position.
More options
Context Copy link
Not to be snarky, but are we sure of this?
There does seem to be a lot of magical thinking applied to not just black people but “diversity”. It’s taken for granted that without black people (slavery), America wouldn’t even exist. (“Slaves built America.”) Just look at the purported benefits of diversity. Without diversity we wouldn’t have creativity, innovation, social cohesion, social justice, or equity.
It’s hard to square these claims with reality in any realistic, non-magical way.
I'm quite sure that affirmative action's advocates in academia don't literally believe blacks are magic.
Now to be clear I do think some of the current generation of racial nonsense is driven by anti-white sentiment, either self hating whites or academically inclined resentful minorities. The difference between the two is obvious from their writing styles, and to be fair, most of the people spreading these sentiments are mostly around whites that I don't like very much either(but not because they're white). But that's a different issue and the idea that "white people are incapable of creativity and can only invent things by stealing them from other races" doesn't imply other races are magic, it implies whites are evil and/or defective.
Of those, the last two are literally buzzwords made up to justify diversity, social cohesion may be factually wrong as a benefit of diversity but it doesn't require magic, and creativity and innovation are synonyms which have perfectly plausible explanations for why diversity helps- getting people with different ideas brainstorming leads to new ideas much better than if people think the same.
More options
Context Copy link
When I say Bob built my house, I am not saying , I wouldn't have a house otherwise, because I would have employed Fred or Charlie to build it instead. But it wouldn't be exactly the same house.
And if you ask who did build "this" house, Bob is the factually correct answer even if some other house would be here otherwise.
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