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 -
Would you be OK with 80% Asian, 16% white (mostly Jewish) and 4% other if that's what meritocracy says? There are lots of people who scream meritocracy but then when it turns out they lose out to people even smarter than them they want to restrict things so that they stay on top. That's the true criteria for supporting meritocracy (assuming you're white here, I personally wouldn't mind 1% Asian, 99% white as long as those whites were some super race of 200IQ genetically modified geniuses, that's meritocracy and completely fair).
I'm sorry, but knowing your cultivated persona and giving you full credit, I'd assume that if meritocracy didn't include you, you would do all you could to subvert it.
Nah, as long as I have a passenger seat in the story of Humanity I'd be happy. Even now I realize I'll never be truly Great and have to content myself with merely being above the vast majority of people. I'm happy here and honestly would be happy working a 80th percentile pay job too if in return the low end scroungers got their just deserts (or rather, had their taxpayer funded desserts taken away). I'm not one to rebel against my superiors, that's more of a low human capital thing to do.
failed rebellions are this but successful ones are not. If the superiors are defeated in the only arena that really matters they were, evidently, not superior.
The French revolution led to the removal of the monarchy by the proles. Does this mean the proles were superior to the aristocrats?
Within twenty five years the house of Bourbon had been restored to the French throne. Does this mean the proles weren't really superior because the royal family had managed to regain power?
Since superiority/inferiority isn't something which changes at single generation level timescales we can't have the proles being superior first and then the royals, one of them were always superior, even though they both got defeated in the arena shortly after the other. So which is it?
Btw, the current Spanish Royal Family is descended from the House of Bourbon. The Spanish weren't able to permanently throw off their royals in the way the French were. So does that mean French proles were superior to the royals while Spanish proles were inferior? Even though both of the groups, being proles, have very little differentiating them?
What of it?
You do realize that the last Monarch of France (and the guy who effectively codified the current french model of government) was a Boneparte rather than a Bourbon don't you?
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