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 -
lol, and now it's all about me? Why is it all about me? Because it's all about ego in the minds of people who get derailed by my "moral implications", "pejorative language", etc., and jettison the subject to focus on personal issues which, your comment being a good example, are projected onto me without the slightest intention of validating them with me.
Everything you said from, "This response is a useful demonstration of how you respond..." to "... while inviting others to come up with new definitions of old concepts," is inaccurate and misrepresentative -- as well as constituting a strawman you're not using to poke holes in what I said but derail focus from the topic onto my person and character. Blatant ad hom.
In contrast to your approach here -- characterize a person you've never met in vague, hypothetical terms instead of addressing the specifics you only allude to -- I'm happy to take criticism on specifics. And I will, of course, criticize the criticism where it falls short and misses the mark. But there has been very little of that here in the comments. Most of them have boiled down to reciting status quo dogmas (which I've explained for what they are), straw-manning (which I've addressed specifically), and illogical, fallacious claims about what I supposedly said but never said (which I've addressed specifically).
I'll give you mega points for slick presentation, though.
It's on you to present examples of what you're alleging so that we can talk about them. I don't see any evidence that you're interested in that so far, which is why I think you've chosen a broad, unspecific brush to paint/characterize me in an unfavorable light. But I invite you to get real.
I'd like to ask, specifically: do you think all "pejorative language" is illicit? Did you pay any attention to what my "pejorative language" was directed at? If so, did I direct it towards people or towards vile ideas, baseless and antagonistic claims, and general bullshittery? Please quote where I put someone down or impugned them personally. Or is it, in your mind, that if a person calls your idea stupid or silly or bullshit, they have called you stupid or silly or bullshit? Just wondering if that any of this has even occurred to you, because I've met oodles and oodles of people who simply cannot distinguish the two. They never like me very much. I take it as a compliment.
Would you allow me to infer your mindset and character from your comment? I could. I don't want to. I'd rather just ask, like I've been doing here.
False. Mere seriousness does not imply bias or motivated reasoning in the sense you seem to mean. Just so that you know, I am anti-ideological. I'm not motivated by an ideology. I'm motivated by wanting to understand what's really going on and love for what I'll find out, because I'm convinced after 70 years of life that nothing which isn't lovable actually exists.
This is really quite good. You've done some good thinking as far as assembling an argument. Sadly, you've premised your psychoanalysis on ignorance, imagination, and surmise without having done the least little thing to ascertain facts.
Bottom line -- aside from facticity, accuracy, representativeness and the rest, there are two very basic and easily seen movements that people make when presented with a topic: either they move towards engagement or they move away from it towards dismissal. It's got nothing to do with whether we agree or disagree. In one way, it really doesn't matter what a person says, ultimately, if their sole intention is to successfully dismiss a topic. Ad hom and pretended psychoanalysis are just two of the more repugnant ways to justify dismissing what a person has said and/or dismissing them. Personally, if all someone is interested in doing is dismissing my ideas or me as the ideator, then their "evidence" and reasons and justifications don't amount to much for me. I know what I've done, I know how I got here, I know what I've got, I know how I've tested it and how it's fared. You literally know none of that except what I might have mentioned here (or elsewhere, if you went looking). So, little-to-none is as much merit as your opinions here warrant, being totally or practically factually baseless. But I'm not dismissing you (just in case you were poised to leap there.) I'm totally down to engage on specifics. Let's discuss.
More options
Context Copy link