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 -
Social constructivists often attack science and empiricism. They will say that objectivity, logic, and the like are tools that the powerful uses to oppress the weak. For you, the world we live in looks like world (1): Reason is real, some things are true and some things are false. For social constructivists, the world we live in looks like world (2): Reason and truth aren't real, but are illusions that an existing hegemony and powerful order uses to justify its power. That's why it appears so real, or appears that truth is so convincing.
Since you're all about empiricism, and supporting your beliefs with evidence, how would you distinguish the world we live in from (1) or (2), or do you just take it on faith that we live in (1)?
Reason and logic aren't properties of our world: They are absolute. You could say they are necessary properties of any world, there is no possible world where 2+2=5. They aren't empirically derived, they are what empiricism itself is built on.
It's true that entities can attempt to push false reason to gain social power. The answer to this is actual, better reason.
I believe what you call social constructivism is to some degree such an attempt: Delegitimizing logic and replacing it with an inconsistent system that elevates the viewpoints of specific people.
Radical hat on: the only absolute truth is power, and those with power use it to peddle and back other so-called truths.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that there are absolute truths, but how sure are you that you have direct access to them? I agree that actual, better reason will always illuminate false prophets, but seeing a true proof and seeing a false proof look very similar.
I agree social constructivism is an attempt to dethrone an existing hegemon, and has an agenda.
I think ultimately enlightenment, reason, and empiricism are mistake theory, and require some sort of shared assumptions or shared trust in order to work in practice. Once you step outside of the narrow scientific domain, and into the wider one of relations and conflict, is reason really all that important? Would you accept an argument from an enemy?
Yes, my mind could be influenced in some way making me entirely incapable of applying reason - but following that line of thought only leads to intellectual capitulation. At some point I have to axiomatically assume that I'm in principle capable of understanding logic. So far it has worked out, and my ability to navigate the world I experience has consistently improved.
Yes, absolutely. I would, naturally, apply increased scepticism and scrutiny, double check their arguments and critically examine the sources for their factual claims. But in the end, being my enemy doesn't reliably prevent them from being right, so I can't dismiss their argument out of hand.
Reason is important because finding the truth is important. Conflict exists, which means some people don't work towards the truth - but this just makes it more important that I do. What else am I supposed to do? Even if I were to embrace conflict and work to maximising my own gain (which I don't want because it would make me a bad person) that mostly* doesn't tell me what policies would achieve that.
*Even many classic identity politics topics. For example, gender quotas in high positions: It seems my position would derive from my gender, but most men and women aren't actually directly affected by this, and there are arguments that a quota would benefit men (not sure how to steelman this, but it could still potentially be true), as well as harm women (by introducing stereotypes of "only got in by quota").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link