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 -
You can chant the mantra all you want, you're not going to stop people from using it as an "I disagree" button, and if that's how they're using it, that's what it is.
For the same reason calling someone's ideas "retarded" would be a violation of the decorum, but calling them "immature" would not, even though they mean the same thing.
It would need some edits ("moral mutants" is past the line, I think), but the substance is fine.
Well, I agree to an extent, and both of the posts we're discussing have their strengths and weaknesses re: productive discussion. Ozy's is better in the she elaborates on her views, explains where they come from, and why they are irreconcilable with conservative ones, the issue is mostly her tone. By contrast FC's tone is perfectly fine as far as I can tell, but elaborating on his views could soften the blow for any progressive skimming through The Motte. In his defense, he was responding to "Hanania is literally the only thing keeping me from falling back into white supremacy, someone please throw me a lifeline!". He did. I understand how the post might be a turn off as a stand alone one, but surely even a progressive could see the value in providing peaceful and non-racist alternatives to white supremacy?
More options
Context Copy link