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 -
The big one, I would argue, is what exactly constitutes "the default". I get the impression that the majority of liberals today have effectively forgotten or are otherwise unaware that there is a world outside liberal society. This leads them to take the assumptions (and current prosperity) of liberal societies like the US and EU for granted. Accordingly they are unable to perceive the relationship between decriminalizing shoplifting and retails stores closing, between unregulated immigration and falling wages, between de criminalizing drug use and the prevalence violent schizophrenics on the subway.
It's the Glenn Reynolds bit fisking the Washington Post headline about "Despite Shorter Prison Sentences Crime Continues to Rise". emphasis on the "despite".
I think you are right that "the default" is a big divide. In fact, I feel like it's been a scissor statement I've witnessed directly in my life.
I think Scott has written before something like "if you want to understand conservatives, pretend that there's going to be a zombie apocalypse tomorrow. If you want to understand leftists, pretend everything is going to be stable for the rest of time". I've spoken with both leftists and people I know who have anti-leftist leanings about this notion of the default, and it really scissors right between them, with each group being unable to fathom that anyone can disagree with them. The leftists generally come at it from a perspective of "well, everything would be stable forever, and we would always have enough resources for everyone to have everything they need, if only the billionaires shared their wealth (that incidentally they only got through exploiting the poor)". And the conservatives come at it with "there is barely anything holding keeping us from a risk societal collapse already". Which one of them is more right? I really can't say, and I don't really know how to argue with either of them. Perhaps it's simply an axiomatic belief.
A Thrive/Survive Theory Of The Political Spectrum
More options
Context Copy link
The reaction to Covid doesn't fit this pattern.
That's been covered before on this forum. I think people have said it ended up being a toxoplasmosis thing where people reacted to other people's reactions, resulting in a bit of a flip flop.
For example, we saw a lot of leftists covering covid from the angle of "we need to do something because this illness will hit the most needy of our population the worst, like black people". And for what it's worth, conservatives might have felt that covid wasn't close enough to zombie apocalypse level, because it is such a minor illness compared to even other things like polio. They might have felt it was annoying that the left was overreacting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link