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 -
Heads I win, tails you lose. If the common people vote wrong, it's their fault. If they vote right, but get the opposite, still their fault.
If they support the right policies, it’s not their fault when they don’t get implemented. If they support the wrong policies, it’s not their fault because they’re brainwashed.
This tendency towards external loci of control is not healthy. Half of the stuff (like boomers) doesn’t even make a lick of sense. I’m saying, before you start blaming every group under the sun for why things don’t go your way, check with the 60-40% of the population that agrees with the ‘externally imposed’ policy.
I thought what we were discussing here was mass immigration being implemented despite it's unpopularity. I got into several threads at once, so I may have lost track of the conversation, but I don't see anything about brainwashing here.
If something doesn't make sense to you, ask for clarification, rather than throwing random sneers that it impossible to tell what your objection even is.
How is "third world immigration was never popular anywhere in the west, there was no referendum on this" not doing exactly that?
What is there to understand? Blaming boomers or brussels for immigration is simply wrong. If an anti-immigration voter then supports an anti-boomer or anti-brussels law, which fails to stop immigration, that’s not a failure of democracy.
Let's say the population is 60-40 opposed to immigration, but the governent still effectively allows immigration. That’s not proof that the people’s will doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean you have to look elsewhere for the ultimate cause. Perhaps the 60 do not care as much. Perhaps the government thinks the people’s will on this issue is not reconcilable with the people’s will on other issues (like maintaining the retirement systems). In any case, I guarantee that shrinking that 40 will be more effective in stopping immigration than blaming all the external boogeymen.
I’m not saying elites, the pro-israel lobby, russia and its interference, etc, do not have any power. But the paranoid right denies all agency to the people. And so you get this situation where they fail to see a moral difference between israel (nay, an israeli, nay, a jew) asking for something, and stealing. Because america, as they see it, is a retarded giant whose lunchbox you can steal by just asking for it. In reality he’s not brainless and he can say no.
What he said. So you can actually respond to it, for example.
Yeah, I don't think he blamed the boomers. I also see nothing wrong with blaming Brussels.
Do you think that there's anything that could be classified as a failure of democracy?
With these sort of excuses a literal dictator can pretend to be carrying out the will of the people.
That's a very bad example. If two preferences come into conflict you can just start a public debate explaining the problem and asking people to chose the solution they want.
And how can you guarantee that? Any examples come to mind when the elites really wanted to do something, but were foiled by common sentiment, particularly long term? Also, they have much better means to shrink the opposing side.
No we don't. This is another case where asking for clarification of things you don't understand would be better.
Well, I do agree the hatred against Israel is misplaced, and hatred against Jews is even worse. If your elites do not represent your interests, the blame lies squarely on them.
I always say the main purpose of democracy is to prevent a civil war, so that unpleasantness counts. You appear to have a more idealistic vision of democracy than me, which you then negate. To me, it’s about guaranteeing regular people a voice, not a supreme, telepathic link to the levers of power.
They almost always do. And they often are.
I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter with this comparison, because I believe people are also partly responsible for a dictator’s actions (putin, chavez, hitler, hamas, etc). Do you disagree?
They were trying to abolish the death penalty for at least seven decades in france before they did it.
I think they’re still chomping in the ol US of A.
Still seems to me like you assign zero agency to regular people, as long as the government fails to implement 100% of the best version of what they think on every topic.
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