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 -
Nowhere did I say anyone should “focus” on group differences. In fact I made it very explicit multiple times that when fine-grained information about an individual is available, you should use it to override the assumptions you made before you had it.
You didn’t make any effort to actually engage with the specifics of any of the examples I brought up, the distinctions I drew, etc. This is by far the most common outcome of my interactions with you. You just repeat some stock phrases and act like they’re knockdown arguments for every situation. It’s very tiresome, and I feel that you’re an especially poor ambassador for the general constellation of ideas you ostensibly advocate.
Ive been around the internet enough to know that engaging with the specifics of a Gish Gallop is a fool's game. That's why I didn't.
No matter how much you try to hedge and caveat you are still trying to argue that knowledge of group differences is more valuable and informative than fine-grained information about individuals, and that is a premise that I reject.
I am literally and explicitly arguing the opposite, and you’re just obstinately insisting otherwise, despite (again) not actually demonstrating that you’ve made an attempt to understand the specific arguments I’ve made and why.
You asked if racial discrimination was a priori a bad thing. I responded that from a Western/Culturally Christian perspective, yes it is a bad thing and provided a rationale. Specifically that the emphasis on individual merit is a key component of what sets "the West" apart, and that racial discrimination goes against that. You responded by pointing out that judging people individually is often difficult/inconvenient and urging me to cosider the possible benefits of embracing racial discrimination but none of that has anything to do with why I maintain that it is a priori a bad thing.
And when he provided numerous uncontroversial examples of other situations in which a person makes assumptions based on observable traits, you shamelessly ducked having to explain why those are different.
Guessing that an elderly person is likely to be weaker than a young person, or that a bearded man in a keffiyeh might not want any bacon, is just common sense. But you apparently don't have an arrow in your quiver that explains why some assumptions "go against individual merit" while others don't, so instead you just muttered something about not being gish galloped even though that's blatantly not what was happening.
Big fat L.
"Uncontroversial" my ass
This adds nothing. Make an actual point, don't just sputter angrily.
He's trying to "build consensus" by claiming that a position is uncontroversial when it is very clearly not
Comments like this but you're giving him a pass because he's on your side.
You realize literally in the last 24 hours I've been accused of giving passes to "my side" by both leftists and rightists?
Do tell me, what is "my side"?
People are allowed to make arguments you dislike, even poor arguments.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link