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 -
At the risk of continuing beating a dead-horse I this along with several of the replies below illustrative of how the Left's domination of academia and the wider media discourse has effectively neutered our ability to understand or own history and discuss certain topics productively.
For instance, what does it even mean to claim that it "wasn't really a legal document" in this context? It should go without saying "that the Declaration of Independence wasn't really a legal document" because the Declaration of Independence was quite explicitly an illegal document. Those who wrote and signed it were literally risking their necks, and yet it was written and signed...
You say it was primarily about making the case to their fellow colonials and winning over potential allies to which I reply "and?". What of it?
I really do think this cut to the quick of one of fundamental differences between the right and left-wing approaches. To someone who's brain is naturally left-inclined/Rousseau-pilled "legitimacy" and "credibility" are things that are imposed. The legitimate government is "legitimate" because they have guns, money, titles, and official documents stamped by official men with official stamps and sealed with official seals. In contrast, to someone who's brain is naturally right-inclined/Hobbes-pilled "legitimacy" is something that is derived from willing submission, for all the talk of authoritarianism, a core component of Hobbes' thesis is that a legitimate authority is one that the people choose to follow. The King is "the King" not because he wears a crown but because people obey him, or to put it another way "Government via consent of the governed".
In this context such critiques of the Declaration of Independance can't help but ring a bit hollow, the continental congress doesn't need to convince Parlament (though that would certainly be nice and save both side a lot of blood and treasure) they need to convince their would-be followers and allies to back their claim to the proverbial throne.
More options
Context Copy link