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 -
No. What I want is for mutual decency and care to eliminate the insanity of wanting to be a billionaire.
I'm not proposing: I'm trying to get people to fucking think. How can we propose a system when our heads are cemented into a paradigm which history shows has not worked and is resistant to change? Who says what we need is a system? If we need a system, who says that any of us or all of us together are smart enough to design it? What if the fundamental problem is the codependence that compels us to demand that others design a system for us? What if it turns out that we can systematize on the fly and adapt to changing circumstances rather than this obsession for one-size-fits-all? Or at least let's all put our heads together and come up with something far better than what we've got.
Yes, of course, and excellent point. But I don't subscribe to "have to share" or "have to" anything at all. If a person is broken and twisted so that they want to do dysfunctional, harmful things, the answer isn't "There oughta be a law!", it's to help fix them. If they're resistant, there are ways to deal with that, too, that don't amount to erasing them socially like "convict" does. We were so brainwashed with "have to"-think we don't even know it's not necessary. If a person is relatively whole and human, they don't need to be prevented from walking into my cabin and acting like they own the place. I don't need "ownership". How would ownership prevent me from invading your house and breaking or taking your stuff if you're a renter? The owner would? What if the owner is my twin brother and doesn't like you very much? We've been trained to think in ruts and get impugned or punished for trying to break out of them. To wit: the knee-jerk arguments in response to the invitation on this post. Ownership is exactly one of those ruts.
More options
Context Copy link