Sorry for the delay in response here. I'll be brief(ish):
1) Yes, I do relate remote world events to "our culture" in the sense that I relate them to the global cultural ecosystem as a whole, of which "our" (whose?) "culture" is a part.
I want to reiterate that I never suggested otherwise (and quoted myself to demonstrate this), and then made it explicit just in case:
Nothing here implies that culture has no relationship to world events, and for a very good reason: because I don't believe that.
It's a little perplexing, then, to get a second response making the exact same case as the first one. I do not need to be persuaded that all cultural expressions have
some effect on world events, over a sufficient time frame. Our disagreement is subtler and more difficult: a question of degree and emphasis.
2) So many things have long term effects, you could prevent any action by using its lack of immediate result to delegitimize it. "It's not our fault anymore" skips directly to "the consequences would be too far later". The choice of focusing on immediacy is, itself, a convenient way to escape the notion of interconnection and responsibility.
Potentially, but not inherently or inevitably. I have to object to the phrasing I keep seeing here, where you seem to assume people will fall into every possible pitfall of a given position. In reality, it's possible to be thoughtful (or thoughtless) about almost any position, yours or mine.
You say "well, the consequences are later and indirect so our effect is minimal" gives us an excuse not to care, and that's fair enough. But exaggerating our impact can:
a) rationalize our tribalistic desire to yell at people a bunch, and
b) give us an excuse not to do harder, more direct things to help.
In other words, how many people are just angry, and pretending Internet arguments have a meaningful effect gives them license to indulge that anger, and even allow them to think they're being
productive? And, deciding those arguments are productive, how many people let themselves off the hook for donating money or doing things in their immediate community, because their time on reddit and forums (things they're doing out of compulsion anyway) conveniently count as their "community service"? Not all, we'd agree. But not none, either. And one expects some people even explicitly reason backwards: "This has to be important because I sink so much time into it."
Elections are the expression of public sentiments, and public sentiments are formed through ordinary interactions throughout the years. A racist being elected or not is less the effect of a vote being cast than the effect of years hearing from peers that racism is or isn't okay (and I mean racism as the content, not as the label). Votes used to give punctual visibility to dominant values, now these are permanently visible on the internet.
Sure, but this really has nothing to do with the point I'm making: that
between elections, many of the effects of culture are "saved up" until the next election. Not totally, of course: politicians respond to polling and political pressure even when they're not on the ballot, and there's lots of smaller elections between the larger ones. But it's not linear: if the "wrong guy" wins, all the cultural expression that responds to it has far less effect until the next election. And occasionally it will have none, IMO, particularly if that expression is mostly done for emotional catharsis. Which sure seems to be the case, more and more.
And on internet forums, it means that those who are for or against bombs being dropped on a village have to get along in the name of their hobby, as this is more important to their lives than children being burned alive ("come on we won't ruin the friendly atmosphere over mere differences of opinion").
Under this logic, I'm not sure we'd ever be allowed to talk about movies, since time is finite and every moment we spend discussing or appreciating art (or playing games, or chatting, or whatever) is necessarily a moment we're not spending talking about <insert harrowing world event or situation here>.
And frankly, your job is quite easy here, compared to places where discussions are about whether ukrainians deserve the bombs. There's actually a vague local consensus on this. My gripe is about more remote, abstract elements (the deniability of indirect responsibility/complicity about events - events which themselves are, at least, deplored and disowned).
So yes, in practice, there is a maintained cohesion on this forum. What would be profound antagonisms are actually vastly put aside, in this forum's day-to-day activities.
(Also, I don't really see people "bristle" at the rules. Not even me. I admit their necessity while feeling bitter about what it shows and hides about mankind.)
Okay, this is a good clarification. Your previous post made it sound as if you were talking about this forum and this ruleset, specifically. I see now you're talking about all forums, and even all polite society. Fair enough.
Indeed, I doubt that a political flamewar would change anything. But not because of how remote (in time, scale, space) it is from the consequences : again, this is the voting fallacy but upstream. Sensitivities are shaped by everyday discussions and mirrored attitudes, by values circulations, by subcultural normativities - votes are just the end result of it. But it would be pointless because flamewars are sterile clashes of void rhetorical violence. It would bring the forum down without changing anyone's opinion (on the plus side, it would shatter an impression of tacit assent, on the minus side it would only polarize over-invested postures construed as core identities). In this zero-sum context, skipping the whole mess probably brings a same result at a reduced cost.
Agreed, and this is what most of the rules in question are about. The moment we accept indirect and long-term effects into our decision making about Internet arguments, we must simultaneously accept the practical effect those arguments have on those spaces. Increasingly, the effect is to destroy the space, at which point you have neither the pleasant appreciation of whatever non-political topic it was discussing OR whatever benefits come from "having it out" over those political topics.
But I disagree about the rationale for these rules. I disagree about this idea that words on a forum are disconnected from world events
Again, that's not the argument. The argument is that their effect is muted, blunted, indirect, and hard to trace, and that any righteous anger about the event itself cannot be losslessly transferred to discussions about it.
Reiterating the above: if we're considering the long-term effects argument can have on culture, and culture on world events, we also have to consider the long-term effects of allowing all spaces to be politicized. It sure seems to me as if the net effect of this is polarization and tribalism, which seem to swamp (or at least call into question) the unquantifiable value that comes from confronting such-and-such or calling out so-and-so.
Closed Thread
or scarier
That would add a whole new meaning to the hammer and sickle! Maybe they'll have nice drugs!
