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 -
Lee and rommel helped the atrocities/slaughter along just as much as if they had personnally, sadistically perpetrated them. What they did was perhaps even worse, as they gave moral horror a sheen of panache and respectability.
You accuse me of imaginary lack of restraint, but what good was their restraint? A few british prisoners thought rommel was a swell chivalrous guy, big deal. Meanwhile the military machine he was the mascotte of was starving soviet POWs in the millions. And lee’s pleasant conversations with his old west point buddies can hardly compensate for thousands of little guys dying in a ditch for nothing.
In effect, they would stab you just like a rabid nazi or Bedford Forrest would have, but they would do so politely and efficiently. Sorry, but you don’t get moral points for being affably evil.
Let’s back up a bit. Forget the woke, the current culture war. I’m not interested in Lee’s statue, but in his moral stature. Let’s say you’re lee, or rommel, or a random officer in the german or newly formed confederate army. You get your marching orders. Your home state, your friends and family, are going along with the program, but you have major reservations about ‘the cause’. What is the morally correct course of action?
No they didn't. No one thinks slavery or the holocaust is more respectable because of Lee / Rommel.
It's imaginary because it is unlikely you will ever be in a position where men will follow your orders to commit atrocities. But you speak with the moral certainty of a crusader, it stands to reason you'd act accordingly given the opportunity.
I once again refer you to the Wehrmacht vs. Red Army example. If the Wehrmacht had less restraint, you'd likely be using that as proof of how evil their cause was.
You're the one claiming that sort of question is answerable, not me. The entire point of my framework is that the big questions are hard to answer, which is why doing the small, answerable, things right is so important, and why people like Lee deserve credit for it.
Lol, no. This is too good of an example to let go.
As an illustration of the above point, I believe the conduct of our medical establishment regarding the transgender issue is the biggest medical scandals since lobotomies. But it is not the fact that they're on the other side of this giant controversy that bothers me about them, it is precisely the little things: the refusal to engage with opposing views, the censorship, the getting people fired from their jobs. I don't think I'm wrong on the issue, but it's not impossible, but if I conduct myself with some semblance of decency I can sleep easy knowing I did what I did with good intentions. This would ring rather hollow if I lowered myself to their level.
With your approach all of that is irrelevant. If I'm wrong, I'm just an evil transphobic chud, and everything done to me is justified. If I'm right, I guess I should be firebombing some gender clinics and WPATH conferences right now, and no one should be able to say shit.
Strong disagree. Isn’t that what the lost cause is all about? That they were in effect just lee-esque, decent, gentlemenlike men doing their duty. By extension, an institution defended by such men couldn’t be all that bad, could it?
I endorse none of these things, even against nazis, so again complete irrelevancy.
cop-out. This is a far more fundamental disagreement than the rest of the comment. Imo after that admission, you’ve forfeited the right to condemn anything the woke, or anyone else, do. Who knows, maybe hitler was right, it’s unanswerable. All you know is that you approve of Rommel’s good manners.
You'd have to talk to a lost-causer about that, I suppose.
I never said you did so that's a deflection, and it's not irrelevant, it directly addresses your argument below.
Not only is it not a cop-out, it would be a glaring contradiction if I answered anything else. You know that, because you've made fun of me when you thought that's what I was doing.
Yes, I agree this is the fundamental disagreement. No, I have not forfeited anything, as I outlined in the other argument that you dismissed as irrelevant, yes the woke might very well be right, and I might be wrong about the big questions, but it is the small things that make them evil.
It’s a common enough defense, that’s why I keep accusing FC of moral relativism, but I always have a hard time believing it is a genuine position, as opposed to a one-off tactic. Who would willingly confess to moral incompetence on all the big questions?
You guys are not behaving as if you just want people to be nice, and refuse to judge/abstain from voting on the big questions. No, you act like your side is entirely morally correct, and part of that case is that your opponents aren’t nice (well, sometimes you argue you shouldn’t be nice either because they started it, but whatever).
Someone honest about limits of their knowledge.
At this point I think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Here, again:
This does not boil down to "I just want people to be nice". Can you at least consciously try to paraphrase the above in your words, in a way that you think I'll recognize as my own views?
That's pretty reductive, but baby steps I suppose. Yes, I did say getting the small things right is more important that answering the grand moral questions, no?
Can you give an example?
Generally, the sub (and FC) is more partisan right-wing than I am on the topics you highlighted, free speech, not firing people, tolerance for differing opinions among friends.
How is that being not nice because they started it?
A common sentiment in the sub is “When we had power, we gave them free speech. Now that they have power, they deny it to us. We won’t make that mistake again.“
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is devolving into petty squabbling, but I don't think 'wanting people to be nice' is a disparaging re-phrasing of your meaning. You admitted they are small things. The 'good manners' analogy is a more hostile paraphrase. And accusing me of cheka membership and a willingness to commit atrocities is on another level entirely. Anyway, I don't think it's for the speaker to define what can be inferred from his arguments.
Sorry, I think I ninja'd in an edit just before you posted.
I don't mind you being disparaging, it's probably unavoidable when two fundamentally different moral worldviews clash. The "good manners" thing actually works as an analogy, especially since we both recognize it as a hostile paraphrase, which is why I don't object to it. What I do mind is you being reductive. What's the point of elaborating on my worldview and giving examples, if you're just going to pretend I didn't say what I said?
Yes and no. Sure, go ahead and extrapolate as much as you want from what I said, even if I might disagree with it, but do not dismiss what I said, at least without making it explicit (calling one of my arguments irrelevant was good in that regard, because I could respond to it).
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link