Culture War or Common Ground? | INFJ Forum

Culture War or Common Ground?

Satya

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
May 11, 2008
7,278
562
656
MBTI
INXP
Jim Wallis, a prominent activist, made this argument...
Want to know how to win a culture war? Don't fight one. The soul of our nation has been marred from a perpetual state of culture war. In an Orwellian twist, each camp relies on conflict with their supposed enemies for the perpetuation of their own existence. The culture warrior's clout, influence, fundraising, and organizing is based upon real or perceived attacks from the other side. These "threats" and boogeymen are their oxygen, and without them, they die.

The biggest fear of those leading the culture wars is not an attack from the other side or the threat of losing ground on their issues -- it is common ground. Culture wars require a clash of incompatible ideologies; common ground acknowledges differences but finds practical shared goals. Practical shared goals mean people and parties with different ideologies can both "win." When culture wars are fought, the only people who win are those who build their careers off them.
Click to expand...

Does he make a valid argument? Is engaging in culture war just a waste of time and resources? Does real positive change result from common ground? Is common ground truly possible in an era of hyperpartisanshipt and fundamentalism?
 
Do you have a link to the full article or source? Just curious.

This is probably the most interesting question I've seen you posit in a while, Satya. I'll have to think about this one before I post.
 
Last edited:
I think that he is absolutely right. Culture wars in America are what keep the people squabbling while D.C. is actually fucking shit up. If there was a lot more common ground we could fight things that were actual problems instead of worrying that people might be having sex behind closed doors or smoking pot in their parents basement. Funny thing is I bet the people who actually would fight the culture wars are the people whod be most effective fighting for something more meaningful. I mean that you dont need to keep the people who are lazy preoccupied, they are too busy taking naps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Satya said:
Jim Wallis, a prominent activist, made this argument...


Does he make a valid argument? Is engaging in culture war just a waste of time and resources? Does real positive change result from common ground? Is common ground truly possible in an era of hyperpartisanshipt and fundamentalism?
Click to expand...

He's got a point, and I really think it is possible, in almost all cases... Most cultures can coexist, and that's the truth, simply because we are all human.

Humanizing _____________ people is the best way to "win" any so-called culture war.

Just off the top of my head, I think the only cases where it is not possible for cultures to coexist are instances that involve major harm or repression to certain groups, or cases of zealotry. It seems to me that there are far fewer zealots running around than the media would make it appear, but the ones that exist expend enormous energy telling everyone else how to live.
 
You think maybe it's because people are too damn nosy to let others live their lives in peace without complaining, "those people are too different?
 
deadred said:
You think maybe it's because people are too damn nosy to let others live their lives in peace without complaining, "those people are too different?
Click to expand...

Maybe that should be the question for my next thread.
 
On the other hand I think all this conflict avoidence will eventually lead to a soylent green scenario. /paranoia
 
uberrogo said:
On the other hand I think all this conflict avoidence will eventually lead to a soylent green scenario. /paranoia
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how seeking common ground leads to eating people...but okay.
 
Well, people make common ground all the time in terms of cultural wars; they also make perceived enemies. I mean, next time you hear something about a culture war, look out for words that pit "them" against "us" -- there are plenty of scapegoats out there, after all. "The government," "the church," the so-and-so political party versus this-or-that race or religion or whatnot...those are common ones. It's easy to make a movement against these faceless, huge villainous groups if it seems like they're all out to get you, and that goes from either side.

And I don't doubt there are people profiting off of it. It's actually very easy to create a reason to go against just about any group of people because, like Wallis stated in the argument, you can't have a group unless the group is somehow different. And any difference can be painted in a negative or positive light, depending on how the pitch is made.

So, in short, I agree.
 
Satya said:
Jim Wallis, a prominent activist, made this argument...


Does he make a valid argument? Is engaging in culture war just a waste of time and resources? Does real positive change result from common ground? Is common ground truly possible in an era of hyperpartisanshipt and fundamentalism?
Click to expand...

I think he does. It does not allow for mans tendency to kill another man to win an argument though. The culture war could turn into revolution. For me the answer would lie in do people actually want to work it out. If we look toward our past I can say no. We never work it out. We keep perpetuating our goal never seeing that we are wrong for doing so. Hell even Christians fight and they are supposed to believe in Jesus and the same God! If we could quash our ego's maybe we would have a chance. I think a culture war is a waste of time. If we believe in true diversity for all we would accept all. It's that simple really. There should not even be a culture war because we would all love and respect the others rights to live the way they choose. In a word Respect....
 
Agreed.
 
Isn't this implying that "common ground" is at the heart of the problem? When you accept that there must be a "common ground" you accept that there are "incompatible ideologies" and therefore no real solutions.

Creating "common ground" is a defeatest attitude, which fuels the continuation of the war, because as they state - the biggest fear is the threat of losing common ground. As long as there is fear, there is no progress.

So yea, best not to fight.
 
I think that is a refreshing opinion, and yes I think it is possible. The book "How to win friends and influence people" Has me convinced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back