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 think that mistake theory and conflict theory are far too simplistic ways of viewing the world, and I reject identifying primarily as either.
It seems clear to me that the world is messy, and that many, if not most, contentious issues hinge both on people believing different sets of 'facts' (and theoretically, if not practically, once they come to a consensus about the facts they'll agree on policy) as well as fundamental conflicts of values.
Someone who thinks that abortion at 12 weeks should be illegal because they believe fetuses can suffer could, at least in theory, be swayed by arguments about embryonic development and our best guess about cognition and consciousness.
Someone who thinks that zygotes have an Immortal Soul and are thus worthy of life is both factually wrong, and also likely an adherent of values that cannot be moved by rational argument.
For a slightly less CW example, think about two people, who both believe that some degree of taxation and redistribution is justified by the support it provides to the poor, but disagree on what the ideal level of taxation should be.
I can see one of them pulling out papers by respected economists (which both of them agree beforehand are trustworthy), where they find that above a certain level, taxes are distorionary, and prompt those wealthy enough to be net tax payers to flee to other jurisdictions, causing a net reduction in taxes paid, and hence aid available to the poor.
On the other hand, if one of them is an unshakeable libertarian, they might be unwilling to stand any level of taxation that isn't voluntary, no matter the justification. They'll only cave when the cops show up at their door, and maybe they'll decide to feed the dog tannerite in advance. If it's someone with a pathological hatred for the wealthy, they might think the poor suffering is a fair price to pay for getting one over those richy riches.
At the end of the day, humans are messy, values are messy, the Aumann Agreement Theorem is hard to instantiate, and people can accept the same facts and come away with entirely different desired outcomes from said facts.
Hell, even "self-interest" is sometimes not a useful metric. Is a revolutionary who takes up arms against what they perceive as a tyrannical government, often not putting other values over their own bodily integrity and well-being? If a concept pathologizes even overt altruism as well as sheer evil, it's probably not the best rubric.
Fortunately, the civilized world has largely found ways to prevent outright bloodshed even in the face of conflicting values, and we have ways of discharging unhappiness or rage at things not going our way, because the alternative is often unacceptable to both sides. This isn't unbounded, and things can and do go awry.
More options
Context Copy link