3 ms·

The culture war isn't killing us - the other side is. War may suck but it beats being massacred.

• jollybean 6y ago
  You are not being massacred, and the 'war' is mostly based on willing misunderstanding, misattribution and the popular extolling of anger preachers.
  • im3w1l 6y ago
    Allow me to explain the metaphor. When two sides shoot at each other that is called a war. When one side shoots the other that is called a massacre. Hence if another side starts shooting at you and isn't willing to negotiate, massacre or war are your two choices. In "cultural war", this would correspond to one side trying to keep moving their positions forward. The either side either puts up a fight or they don't.
    • niceairport 6y ago
      You've explained further proving that the original statement was wrong. Nobody is shooting at anyone.
      • luckylion 6y ago
        And there's no culture war, because war involves death, bombs and stuff. Right, language, we find it useful to use concepts that don't literally apply because they might help us see similarities. In that case, you don't need literal shooting and trenches. You can talk of wealth redistribution, where "we'll take from A and give to B" is an attack on A. It doesn't involve guns immediately (though it will if A doesn't "voluntarily" give up the goods), but it's useful as an analogy. What the commenters seem to imply is that, if A does not fight back (again, not literally with guns, but politically), they'll be massacred (again, not literally), their interests will not be considered at all.
  • anonymoushn 6y ago
    Either my children will be rejected from universities even if they have perfect SATs and grades on the basis of their race or they will not. There is not much to misunderstand here.
    • Traster 6y ago
      Think you're focused on the wrong issue there. The most likely reason your child is unlikely to get into a good university is because good universities have consistently chosen not to increase class sizes in line with the number of qualified students apply, as a result your child is way less likely due to pure statistics to get in. That's because the schools are social institutions not academic ones.
      • anonymoushn 6y ago
        In some contexts it is considered a bad look to tell people facing discrimination for their unchosen group membership that people of all groups face the same issue and their concerns about the issue are equally valid.
      • jollybean 6y ago
        The ratio of qualified students to good uni seats has always been overloaded. In the context of 'culture wars', the 'number of seats added' is not really a culture war issue. Also, there are tons of great universities in the US. In 'culture wars' we have to have some way of allocating sets to 'the top schools', and it could be just 'SAT', family connections, entrance exam, race, class, etc.. Some groups feel slots should be allocated base on race, some feel otherwise. That one is actually a little bit complicated because although SATs do provide some basis of objective rigour, it's probably the most easily 'gamed' thing and to the extent it's 'gamed' it has little meaning. Do we really want to limit top uni entrance to the 0.1% of HS students spend all of their time preparing for 'A Big Test'? That might be a little bit counterproductive ... but then that 'test' was also one of the more objective metrics. So it's complicated and a ripe area for 'culture war'.
        • Traster 6y ago
• titzer 6y ago
  If you wrote this ironically, then it is masterful. If not, it's tragic irony, as just got massacred by the other "side".
  • jtsiskin 6y ago
    Yes, this made me laugh. “No, no way there is any issue with decisiveness, identify politics, or generalization of groups. The only issue is in fact with group B.”