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 would say that secession is generally more justifiable when you are dominated by a group that hates you and wants to control you and have you live by their rules and likes the idea of dominating you. Giving them some level of autonomy and representativeness through the rulers listening to concerns can alienate this problem.
You can also have amiable divorces like the separations of Czechoslovakia into Czech republic and Slovakia. Neither group were tyranical against each other but they were drifting apart and separated.
In the case of the USA, the elephant in the room is also about the issue of power and being weaker if separated. Which is also the elephant in the room when it comes to American imperialists arguing about how Russia or China should be seperated in smaller states due to "freedom" or identifying the dominant current situation as excessively nationalistic or fascistic.
Larger blocks that are dominated by a certain center are going to be more powerful than divided ones. Of course, if the central force is going to act tyrannical then separation makes even more sense. You also see the opposition advancing the arguement against tyranny. There are even interesting historical examples such as the Athenians with their Delian league made of Greek city states, which was originally formed against the Persians but continued and was the coalition against Sparta in the Peloponesean war. The league was united when it was against a superior and external enemy in the Persians, but found itself in having some conflict within members after the Persians were defeated.
The Athenians also supported imperialism against non Delian leauge members that wanted to be independent. The imperialistic Athenians not only forced defeated countries to enter the league and pay tribute, but also forced them to be subservient and become democratic. There was also a quasi ethnic aspect to this with Athenians and most league members being Ionians. A sort of sub-ethnicity of the Greeks. While the Spartans and their allies of the Peloponesian league were to a greater extend comprised of Dorians and was made of oligarchies.
The Athenians grew more tyrannical against their supposed alliance making more demands of tribute. Eventually, the transformation of the leauge from a sort of alliance lead by Athens into an empire made it unpopular among the Greeks.
There was also the Boeotian league, another alliance of states and which eventually defeated the Peloponnesian league.
So we can see there is the threat of other groups enticing unity and alliances, and the danger of tyranny and being dominated by the stronger part of your own broader group, enticing separation. And human nature applied in groups does eventually lead to those, especially of a different group identity trying to push too far those others who are part of their alliance.
More options
Context Copy link