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 -
I really like your comments on culture war and I disagree with this take for a few reasons. My intention is not to be rude, in case my response sounds off, please let me and I can reword it better.
Will quote a celt in response here, Aidan Maclear
The pursuit of political power is not fair and anyone abiding by moral principles the other side does not keep is outright incorrect. You cannot cooperate with those who defect. I am neither a nationalist nor am I Irish but I would much rather lean towards waht keith woods says on the topic of migration. Even if you dont have crimes being commited, suppose the people migrating are very smart, you still would have some levels of soceital breakdown after the number exceed a threshold. I know people irl who are scamming their way and getting their relatives and friends to ireland, they dont see themselves as irish and explicitly move out because they can reap benefits from the taxes the actual irish pay and live in a society they created which they could not back home.
On the topic of Conor, this was a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding where a girl retroactively took back her consent. I am not sure if we can even call him a rapist legally since he did not serve time in jail, in case it does turn out after a fair trial that he violated her consent, I will hope for justice for the girl involved.
The anti-migration people doing what any political movement that wins always does, it is not ideal behaviour in some place like this forum or in ones family or house but if the people who are against you start doing underhanded things, the only way you can get any peace is by winning against them and that cannot be done via morals. There are examples of the political class letting go of rapists, this case in England for instance. I am obviously against having rapists or other criminals in any movement but he has not been judged to be a rapist by the criminal court. I am not a rape apologist but there is nothing wrong in being a hypocrite in my opinion if you are up against people who routinely do the same thing. You defect against those who defect.
I thought Tit for Tat with forgiveness did a lot better than spam defect strategies?
Point of order: TfTwF does mostly spam defect against defectbots (just not 100% as true TfT does).
Objection, relevance?
TfTwF doesn't "abide by moral principles the other side does not keep". It occasionally extends an olive branch, but then goes right back to defect-spam if it's not taken.
There is room for counterargument to @mrvanillasky's position, but it's entirely based on disputing the IPD frame; TfTwF does not do what you're arguing for and pure CooperateBot is not a winning strategy. This is why I said "point of order", as I was disputing the analogy rather than the conclusion.
I think it does? The moral principle of occasional forgiveness. The other side does not have such a rule. Is the key word here 'abide'? Is it incoherent to say someone abides by a rule that is only implemented say 10% of the time? Like, we abide by a rule of spot checking 10% of our products? Or is abide not important and there is some other reason you think it is not an example of a rule the other side does not keep?
We're operating in meta-land here, where "co-operate" = "abide by principles" and "defect" = "ignore principles for partisan gain". Or at least, that's the frame @mrvanillasky was using. Talking about abiding by principles of how often to co-operate vs. defectors is thus not addressing the point because that's another meta-level up.
I would indeed make that claim about "abide".
I will note for the record that TfTwF only actually beats TfT against things extremely similar to "TfT plus noise", and that in the TfTwF mirror the one that's slower to forgive wins.
This reply, from @mrvanillasky, seems to be saying he wants to move from a cooperate bot into some kind of TfT bot, because he is tired of hitting cooperate only to get burned because the other side didn't.
It seems at least somewhat germane to discuss the kinds of strategies for defecting that the right is going to take, when making a general call for the right to start defecting more.
I am not sure if I am really on the wrong meta level.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, TfTwF is a program, it is hard for me to imagine anything being more capable of 'abiding by a rule', as that is the very nature of the beast.
I quoted the specific phrase I did for a reason, outright incorrect seem to me, to say something more like 'This strategy is never correct' more than it says 'In this specific situation this strategy is not correct'.
(1+3)If you narrowly define 'abiding by moral principles' to mean 'cooperating with a defect bot' then sure, but I don't think it was unreasonable of me to not define it that narrowly, given the actually discussion was of real world politics and these toy models are just abstractions anyways.
edit: formatting
can you please tell me what TfT, TfTwF mean here?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link