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 -
There are many kinds of attachment. It's normal and natural to develop attachments to things, places, ideas, etc. Children are much less than 2-y-o when they first start attaching to objects, even before they can say, "Mine!" And for the most part, early attachment isn't so much to the thing itself, but to the activity they were engaged in with the thing. Without the thing they can't do the activity. Direct attachment to objects comes a bit later, and you can see it in their eyes and in the fact that they'll hug the thing. Not all forms of attachment are the same, and none of them constitute ownership -- because ownership is a legal right and a legal status that has little to nothing to do with attachment or lack of it.
So, nothing stops us from characterizing attachment as "ownership", but that's just a way of talking about it which, strictly speaking, misrepresents the attachment.
Again, I'll caution you like I've mentioned a few times elsewhere, you can't base confident claims on statistically negligible data samples. 10 - 15K years of authoritarian supremacism and the practice of "ownership" does not define a species that's been extant for at least 300 - 400K years (and now some are suggesting far longer than that,) nor a genus that consensus says has been around for a few million. I'm not sure what, "Scoping in the entire homo genus to talk about problems unique to the last few thousand years seems bonkers," means, and I'm not sure what I've said implies that, whatever it means, but I am sure that you can't cast claims across millions of years of evolution that you've gleaned from looking at just the last few thousand. I bring that up in response to the argument form that we've "always" done it that way (ignoring that thousands of years don't constitute "always") so there's no way, no how that we could diverge radically from what we've "always done". And that's not even to touch on the fact that all but a minuscule few of human beings have lived those few thousand years in distress, fear, oppression, and severe lack. Generational trauma is now recognized by many. What kind of millennial trauma has resulted from the evils of civilization? So, besides being an extremely small sample, it's also heavily tainted. We've got no clue what wild, free, mobile humanity was like. We did a couple hundred years ago, but "nomadic peoples" were viewed with disdain and bias as "uncivilized", so despite what was done to observe them externally, little was done to understand them. For the most part, Euro-Americans were only interested in what they could extort and, eventually, how to get rid of them.
There is no burden of proof here, because I've made no argument. Just food for thought, a super-brief orientation to my perspective, and an invitation to explore. You're treating that as an argument, though. It's not.
I was a Christian for 22 years and have deeply studied the thinking both during that time and in the 30+ years since. No supremacist, authoritarian religion -- Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, and plenty besides -- has any hope of improving things, because supremacism and authoritarianism are inherent to the deprivational approach, and those operations would cease to exist as religions if supremacism and authoritarianism were eliminated from them.
More options
Context Copy link