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 think you just proved his point... First im not sure Ive seen "bankers" called out on the right, typically it is elites, globalists, big tech, etc. Calling out bankers and financial institutions is more left coded in my experience.
Second, most on the right tend to be more pro Isreal and find more in common with religious jews than with blue tribe.
I mean shit, how many times has Ben Shapiro been labeled a literal nazi by the left?
Frankly someone claiming another party's innocuous statements are "dog whistles" indicates that the claimant refuses to extend any charitability to the other party and is defacto acting in bad faith. They are merely searching for an excuse to hate the outgroup.
I don’t disagree with you or Hylnka that innocuous statements are called dogwhistles all the time even when they are actually innocuous statements. I agree that when politicians/mainstream media figures are called out for using dogwhistles it’s bad-faith partisan bullshit 99% of the time. My point is just that simply recognizing an obvious dog whistle doesn’t mean you are “the dog” if the statement is in fact a dog whistle. As in if you go on 4chan and see someone refer to (((bankers))) you’re not anti-semitic for recognizing what they are referring to
You're not anti-semitic, but I would argue you are a dog. A "dog-whistle" is generally just a term of art or piece of jargon that reads differently to those in-the-know than those not in-the-know. I don't think that agreeing with the argument being made is a relevant part of it. The difference is between you hearing it (and disagreeing) vs. it going completely unnoticed by you.
One bit of irony is that it's pretty common for conservative speakers in the US to use properly metaphorical dogwhistles, with the following significant caveats:
the statement isn't racist, sexist, or whatever -ist is popular; and
the statement isn't actually picked up by liberals except sometimes as "what could he have meant by that weird statement?"
It's usually a Biblical reference, used as shorthand to describe something. Both speaker and audience have enough shared understanding that a casual reference suffices to communicate, while the liberal commentariat has no idea. It may not even be intended as covert, just efficient, and yet the intended audience understands while the outside audience has no clue which is exactly the situation a dogwhistle claims to describe.
(Also, I am protected at the bottom of the stairs. You cannot shove me!)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link