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 -
You don't? A straightforward answer to the question would give some indication of what you would think or do in the situation, but for some reason your actual answer only says what you think is likely to happen, and says nothing about your personal judgement of the outcome. Which is awfully convenient given your later argument about people rejecting the "overarching context" when it's suits them. That's a very peculiar kind of blindness that you have, for sure.
Unless they lose that particular fight for a second time, in which case we'll come back to pretending they never wanted it again.
It's a good thing I'm not trying to save marriage from homosexuals during the course of this conversation, then.
Much like your totally not racist statement about which races it's ok to segregate from, this one sure takes the sting out of any talk of "transphobia". Unless you think that being trans is a mental illness in and of itself, these aren't the majority of trans people, and they cause more backlash than the mentally ill unpassable 40-somethings.
The conversation so far:
- The march of progress is inevitable!
- No it's not. There are several issues where "progress" was brought to a halt, we just pretend to not remember them, or that they weren't "progress".
- Ok, let's say I believe you, how is that relevant?
- Because it shows that the march of progress is not inevitable...
- But it is inevitable!!!
And as as far as I can tell the "overarching context" is the same thing as "the inevitable march of progress" so that argument was entirely circular.
My entire point is that you're not doing that. First you act like you want to have a rational conversation, when it's pointed out how your arguments and comparisons make no sense, you switch to religious proclamations and start playing the preacher bonking the unfaithful with a bible, and finally when I switch to questions more appropriate for a religious conversation and ask you about your sincerely held beliefs, you suddenly adopt a passive disembodied voice and act like the discussed beliefs aren't even yours. The only time when it looks like you might mention something about your beliefs, you talk about what you don't believe and immediately pivot to criticizing others.
I'm game for any kind of conversation sincere you want to have, but this is just trolling.
It's pretty easy. Both sides have to want it, and be aware of the inferential gaps between each other. You can't make someone do it though, and the entire point I was making is that you don't seem to be showing any desire for having one.
Maybe to you, but progressives wouldn't be making dissent a bannable offense if it felt empty do them.
The march of progress is inevitable when it is not opposed outside the context that enables and drives it. I spent most of my last post going over this. As an example, eugenics didn't end as a permissible idea because of an argument based on a common understanding of human biology and genetics. There was instead a giant paradigm shift that supersedes any objective truth value about biology.
Progressives and true believers don't engage in discussions. There are plenty of examples of islamic preachers screaming at heretics, or SJW's screaming at dissent. Not a lot of much else. On a more macro level, Islam bans heresy when it can, so to do progressives. You can argue in theory that you could talk and dissent over ideas with true believers over their faith, but in practice that's not the case. That's because dissent to a true believer is empty in the sense of relevant intellectual content, but filled to the brim with hostile intent. Only an enemy would say something like that, and enemies must be destroyed.
You don't talk to people that draw pictures of Mohammed to understand where they are coming from. Language is just a tool to get them to do what you already know is true. The alternative is to kill them. This is also very evident in progressive forums were talk of debates or discussion is only understood in the form of propaganda. Make your side look good, make other side look bad. The truth has already been decided.
As for me trolling, no. I'm not. I've been reiterating the same point again and again. I've stated that my position is that adhering to progressive orthodoxy whilst being against the consequences is counterproductive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link