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 -
It does mean those arguments are uncompelling to THEM, however. Because it means having to condemn their own ancestors, which lots of people are unwilling to do. And those who are usually think that some form of reparations should be made. That's kind of my point, most of the people who acknowledge what their ancestors did was wrong, end up on the progressive side. It's why we see alt-right types here rail against Conservatives for not wanting to stop all immigration, only illegal immigration. Most Americans have a vested interest in regarding (legal) immigration as being a moral good. Because for many of them it's the only reason they are where they are. Sure that isn't a logical argument, but feelings trump facts here.
If you want the current polity to actually limit immigration, that's what you have to contend with. From my perspective if the US decides to limit or not limit immigration, that is largely up to them. If they want to go with the nation of immigrants myth that they are emotionally invested in, that is entirely their right to do so, whether I agree or not.
The presence of an unrepentant thief who says, "thievery should be punished, but not me, I'm one of the good ones" does indeed call into question his motivation to make that argument. Largely it's what the non thieves think that should hold most sway. The thief by his very nature is unable to be objective about it.
But so what? So people don't condemn their ancestors when they should. Now what? Doors open, come one come all?
Believe me, I acknowledge what I have to contend with, and I lament it.
Right, so forget him and look at his actual argument. You seem to not want to look at the actual argument and only focus on the person making it.
No, you misunderstand. I am saying that for most people that is how they look at it. Hence why they make the attacks you were wondering why they made. The correctness of the argument you are making is mostly moot (and I haven't commented on it for just that reason).
Your question is answered by how people operate, that they use emotion and pattern matching etc. So you or I making the same argument as someone else will get different reactions. In other words, identity does indeed matter. If you want to make arguments that will advance your cause, understanding and accounting for that is important. A white Canadian (or Brit!) immigrant making an argument against immigration is going to be a hard sell, regardless of whether the argument is 100% correct or not. How right you are is less important than how right you are perceived to be.
Gotchya, sorry I misunderstood. Your point is certainly well taken.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link