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 -
But Person A responding to Person B’s narrow claims is only grounds for fruitful discussion if C and D are allowed to chime with alternative or more refined arguments. Otherwise we’re all just passive spectators to the framing of A’s arguments in regards to B’s initial argument. Although maybe there’s a solution in allowing OP’s to specify required assumptions for participation in their post, and then C and D can make new posts instead of commenting underneath.
They can, though. ymeskhout is not your mom, and neither am I; you can post any claims you like about J6 or anything else. But there is, in fact, something approximating the dreaded "distributed motte and bailey", and it really does burn community goodwill for little good effect. The proper response to this isn't rules and mod action, it's self-policing by the community. Hence the above.
People should engage with evidence. We should draw conclusions and update priors in a reasonable fashion. We should certainly extend enough charity to not conclude that if someone on the other side wins an argument, it's because they cheated. I don't actually think that adding additional claims underneath a discussion is the problem. The problem is when people don't acknowledge that prior claims were refuted.
Suppose I argue that J6 has been unfair for reason A, and you argue that J6 is unfair for reason B. If I get disproven, it's easy for you to carry on with your argument... but if you're interested in finding errors, you should be interested in my errors as well. You should give at least a little thought not only to why J6 is wrong, but about why I'm wrong about why J6 is wrong. Doing this helps keep you honest, helps avoid a situation where your rigor is isolated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link