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 -
I didn't see exactly what happened in that case, but as someone who was occasionally part of pushback like that, my perspective is that it is simply because there's a lot of lazy thinking when it comes to criticism of the white nationalists. When you're talking in mainstream society you can just say "x is a white nationalist" and if true that's a devastating critique that destroys someone's reputation by itself, let alone the argument they're making. But that's not the case here - they can actually mount arguments without just instantly being obliterated from the discourse. This means that if you use the same lazy and poorly thought out attacks that get by just fine when the white nationalists have no ability to respond, you'll get destroyed when they can actually mount a defence at all. That's not to say that there aren't any white nationalists here, but I really don't think they're a majority at all.
I also don't think white nationalists are more than a small minority here. But I didn't expect significant pushback again rejecting their silly redefining of terms. One of them tried a lazy gotcha redefinition. I said "no". A number of them leapt to defend the lazy invalid gotcha redefinition.
The redefinition of otherwise sensible terms in question was: if you care about white people, then you necessarily must be a white nationalist. "Ethnostate or you don't care" was the completely invalid false dichotomy. Given that level of argument: they are the ones being obliterated by their wrong redefinition of terms. A single "no" is a complete argument against hostile fringe redefinition of common terms. That's indeed not what "care" means to almost everyone almost always. They can't trap me into saying I don't "care about white people" because I'm not a white supremacist. They don't get to define these words or make me answer to them.
But I have seen young American progressives and religious immigrant Muslims being completely unable to form a counterargument because they've never before been challenged. They think merely asserting their group's consensus is a knock down argument. "I understand you think that, but I don't agree" is beyond their experience or ability to deal with. So I get your larger point.
This sounds strange and unlike most interactions I see on these forums, are you able to find a link?
That’d be hammi in this train wreck of a thread. See also his response for some of the pushback he got.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link