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 -
Not sure what the point of this post is
That "race determines culture" is just wrong, compare the culture of any race X000 years ago to that of any race today. Vikings to middle managers, aztec blood sacrifices to gardeners, japanese empire to efficient japanese manufacturing systems. Both the american upper-class, intellectuals and scientists and managers, contains a lot of indians, middle easterners, asians, jews, and whites - as do the lower classes - and the culture of the upper-class indians sure is closer to that of the upper-class whites or jews than the lower class indians.
The mythology of culture as an external force that perpetuates itself on its own motion is just that.
The only coherent definition of cultural expression is that of genetic material expressing itself in an environment. If you drastically change the environment you change the culture. On top of that, genetic expression can change environment in a feedback loop. But as soon as you change the genes, such as can be seen with, for example, Pakistanis in Britain, you get a massive shift where it becomes obvious where the non-Pakistani genes were doing the work and where the environment was modulating behavior.
There is also a hidden assumption here I find wrong. That, because someone in the past was using primitive tools or technology they must be 'primitive' in comparison to a modern human, that their modes of behavior and emotion were somehow primitive or different in a way that would distinguish them from the emotional expressions of a modern human. There is no reason to assume that the people of the past differ from the people of the present. I am in fact quite sure that a lot of people from the past would become quite docile if they lived in the same luxury modern people live in. And they would modulate their behavior accordingly if their luxurious lifestyle was threatened by them stepping out of line. In fact, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise given this is where the modern man came from. Even if the transformation wasn't without some culling of volatile genetic material, there is no reason to assume that the all the volatility of the past was culled, and that it did not instead modulate to a more prosperous future.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link