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 -
And see my reply to that reply. You claimed that holding things I wanted was theft on your part. I asked you for 10k dollars, you said "other people asked first, sorry". I observe that other people almost certainly didn't ask first in any strict sense of the phrase, and that you are still holding the 10k dollars that you've said I'm entitled to, because people who want things should have them. I've accused you of theft for having 10k I want and not handing it over. If you have an explanation for how that's not actually theft, I will use that explanation also when you ask me for my money.
I mentioned in the other reply that you made no mention of a "line" that I needed to wait in to "share" your assets. Likewise, you made no mention of a possessor's claim of "need" countering the claim put forward by another who wants what they have. By claiming that there is a line, and that requests to "share" should be judged according to "need", you are already 9/10s of the way back to capitalism.
I think it demonstrates that you are making assertions about how we should think about things, without even attempting to account for the obvious consequences of thinking about things in this way. Doing this is a good way to make yourself appear absurd, and if that is your intention, I am pleased to assist.
I too have seen the Argument Clinic sketch.
This is an argument. You are described a philosophical position and claimed that it is substantively correct.
This is an argument.
This is an argument.
This is an argument.
Every post you've made in this thread has contained what appear at least to be attempts at "a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view".
We have a rule here: speak plainly. It seems to me that in this post, you are pretty clearly violating it. Still, I'm involved in the discussion, and will thus keep my mod hat off. You've already drawn the attention of @Amadan, who has not involved himself in the discussion and is already issuing warnings. You should read the rules and attempt to comply with them, or you will likely be banned in short order. If you would like to discuss further while speaking plainly, either your original topic or the rules here, I can try to offer my assistance, but my own assumption at this point is that Amadan is correct and you are trolling.
More options
Context Copy link