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 -
The answer is not Twitter. The answer cannot be exchanging one source of information for another because the actual problem is not the source of information. It’s the meta-espistomology, how does one even begin to assess whether or not a statement is true. And for that, you need to learn th3 toolset of thinking — formal logic, empirical reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning.
The problem for liberals is not that they have bad sources of information, it’s that they generally reason from authority. They take the pronouncements of the Cathederal on a given topic much like a Catholic would take the pronouncements of Pope Francis or Muslim would take a Hadith— the authority has said it, therefore it’s true, and I don’t need to check it out. And even for a very good source of information, this is a terrible way to try to make it all make sense.
Secondarily, I think Twitter is a terrible source of information simply because it doesn’t have anything to think about. It’s just millions of idiots screaming into the void about things they don’t understand. There’s nothing to practice empirical reasoning or deductive reasoning on. And the thing is if you can get someone to start using the toolset, you can get them out of their bubbles faster. Get them trying to predict what else is true if X story is real and it’s harder to keep that person in a bubble.
Depends how much you really believe in the wisdom of the crowd. If you can combine that with a general understanding that the epistemic status of any given tweet is very low, you might indeed be able to glean useful information, based on how wide a given piece of information has spread and for how long.
For example, the JFK files were just released. I ain't readin' any of that. But I am confident that if there's anything interesting in there, Twitter will surface it to me over the course of the next week. And if it's all a dud, it will surface that, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link