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 have a very smart friend who is also a talented decoupler, who could easily be a very quality contributer here if dealing with Culture War issues didn't make him bleed from the eyes. He is literally the only person I know whose Facebook posts about politics did not make me lose respect for him. Over the years, we have had a number of conversations about contentious CW topics that flirted with the border of Adversarial Collaboration, long detailed discussions handled with fairness, civility, and mutual respect.
Until the topic of student loan forgiveness came up. That discussion was unusually heated. He seemed almost frantic, heated about PPP loan forgiveness hypocrites and just not giving the expected degree of decoupled consideration for arguments about how the loan forgiveness was an overall terrible policy. He seemed personally invested, felt personally attacked, in a way he hadn't in conversations about abortion or gun control.
The thing is, my friend is a teacher. Education is a big factor in his identity. He has taught maybe a thousand students who might benefit from the forgiveness plan. Attacks on that plan are an attack on his class identity. Politics is the mind-killer, and it is a sad fact that a rationalist's Art is most likely to abandon him when he needs it most (or, rather, he will fail the Art). And so my arguments sparked an uncontrolled emotional response that was missing from other, less identity-laden topics.
The second thing is, I've been on the other side of that coin, back when we had our multi-day deep dive into the gun control literature. Gun control hits me emotionally as an attack on my class identity. When I hear a gun control proposal, before I hear a single specific detail or spend a second considering merits, some lizard part of my brain interprets it as "Fuck you, your father, your father's father, and your father's father's father". (Does the word "father" still mean anything to you?) I've begged off having spontaneous discussions about it in person, even with close family, because I don't want to spike myself into rage and other unpleasant feelings. During that deep dive, my excellent friend was so calm, fair and rational that he overrode that concern, and I ended up learning a lot and having a great time.
And I'm thinking about this now, because I notice a similar reaction to the trans discussion downthread. The idea that my children might be brainwashed into taking evolutionarily self-destructive choices, and I can't even attempt to oppose it without facing the full wrath of the modern State, kindles a pre-rational, animal panic/fury response. I find myself getting heated to an unusual degree just thinking about it. I don't think I'm particularly "anti-trans". I was willing to be accepting two decades ago, when I first learned it was even a thing. But something about the thought that the phenomenon might hit my kids triggers an atavistic survival instinct. That reaction doesn't trigger when I consider my son dressing like David Bowie, or my daughter playing sports. It doesn't happen when a peer goes trans. It triggers at the thought of one of the two corporeal incarnations of my DNA and memes getting sucked into a fraught psychological memeplex, and particularly at the thought of them being medically sterilized.
Imagine an alternate world where any time a kid expressed suicidal ideation, government employees would firmly nudge them towards euthanasia, and would jail you as a parent for protesting. That's roughly the level of emotional hit - some part of me considers this an existential threat.
But what are the odds? 0.3%? That's not that much worse than the odds of childhood cancer, or other kind of unexpected death that a healthy mind doesn't overmuch worry about, and deals with gracefully if it comes. But now it's apparently something more like nearly 2%? That hits me in the Papa-Bear-Who-Wants-Grandkids-In-Space-Forever. And it seems very likely that a lot of that is social contagion or could otherwise be wildly reduced with a minimal degree of skepticism towards youth fads.
So, two points. One, I think it might behoove activist types (assuming we're not in pure conflict theory) to try to notice when one of their pushes is hitting this sort of reaction and figure out a path to undermine or alleviate it.
Secondly, a question for the community: What gets you fiercely activated, beyond what you can rationally justify? What CW issues feels like molten hot war to the hilt, where your instincts fight to throw aside all reason and charity? Any thoughts about why?
Why not just get vaccinated? I also thought it was kind if bullshit but did it to avoid running my social life.
Are you concerned about health risks or is it a principle?
Speaking as someone who (I think) feels similarly as OP, it's purely about principle. Family should be beyond reproach, as he wrote. In a hypothetical universe where I didn't get vaccinated, it should still be beyond reproach. I hope I'd have the courage to spew this kind of bile in real life if the old, tired topic of covid ever comes up in meatspace. I'd know my success when my friends reply to my rant: "wait, aren't you vaccinated though?"
Yes, and?
How would you feel in a hypothetical universe where COVID has a 10% death rate the vaccines actually were perfect at stopping transmission? Because in that universe I would 100% support all of the hate directed towards the unvaccinated and more. That's why I think it's tricky to say things should be beyond reproach.
Most vaccine mandate supporters believed, approximately, that covid is that dangerous, and that vaccines are that good. Which is why setting any conditions on when a vaccine mandate becomes acceptable is a waste of time - if there's a condition, governments will just lie to meet it.
That's honestly the impression I was under during the period, and which still seems correct. Now my jimmies are very rustled so I won't pretend to be able to judge it fairly, and especially not that I have any proof or deeper insight than a gut reaction and hazy memories of the time period, but the way the science seemingly turned on a dime and seemingly contradictory messages were true on different weeks and every checked fact and expert truth under the sun conspired to make it so that vaccines and only vaccines would save us but only if everyone took them but then with certainty sounded less than credible. I wouldn't go as far as to say the government lied; that seems to imply agency and malevolence that I don't think our government was actually capable of. But they certainly didn't give a shit about telling the truth, and it sounded an awful lot like instead saying whatever would shift the blame onto the outgroup and damn your lying eyes.
So yes, I agree in practice. Governments will make policy whatever they like, and if there should be any hurdle to that then I think we can be sure they'll use every dirty trick in the book to clear it if only because that's the kind of behavior that representative democracy has always selected for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well I suppose I'd say you're lucky in this day and age to have a family that you actually spend time with. Many aren't so lucky.
I took the vaccine simply to keep my friendships, the social network I'd built up was far more valuable than any principles I held being violated. Which principle is it about for you?
Thankfully I didn't face this choice (both because I got the vaccine, and because my social circle isn't crazy). But if I had, I would have chosen to lose my social circle. For me, this comes down to the age old principle of "if they treat you like that, they were never actually your friend". Painful though the separation would be, I wouldn't want to continue being friends with someone who considers political disputes like this to be more important than me and our friendship.
That's a fair point. I will admit that my social circle got pruned quite a bit during and after covid. Part of that was people no longer wanting to come out, and part of it was me consciously not associated with the more insane covid folks.
I'd rather have more control over the process I suppose, than have my reputation nuked and have relationships taken away from me without my say so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One of our extended FM is antivax, but like, full qanon "threaten violence against family members if they get vaccinated" tier. "Beyond reproach" is one thing, but at some point it becomes too painful to interact with them.
Yes, in this case the analogy is backwards, the family member is being the aggressor, not you.
Right, I'm just highlighting that people will have different reference classes in mind depending on their experiences. I think it's less "the vax memeplex makes people crazy" or "anti-vax makes people crazy" so much that many people are just latently crazy and you only really notice it when you and them diverge.
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