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 -
On advice of counsel I invoke my privilege against summary opinion dismissal and respectfully decline to answer your inquiry. Presumably, the personal experience of being a divorcee would make one bitter and lacking in objectivity, too emotionally invested in the subject, and therefore wrong. But is this really the case?
To take another example, let’s say I gave my opinion on parenting, or education, in favour of homeschooling, or against authoritarian parenting. Someone will come and ask me if I have children, again as an implied criticism, to dismiss the opinion of the childless man. But unlike the divorcee, in that case, it is the lack of personal experience, the lack of emotional involvement and lack of subjectivity, that makes him wrong. Opposite causes, same effect.
So it is not epistemic hygiene and concern for the truth that makes these opinions worth dismissing. What then? Status. It is lower status to be divorced and childless. So the dismissal based on personal circumstances pretends to be a method of searching for the truth, but is really about the status games we all play, pushing some people down, getting to a higher rank.
I don’t mean this as a harsh criticism of you, as if I’m responding to an offense: ‘you just made an enemy for life, buddy.’. For all I know, your comment comes from a place of 100% pure empathy, goodness and the search for truth, justice and the american way, you seem like a friendly guy. It’s just a thought, idle speculation.
I was just trying to lighten the mood. I certainly know many men who are divorced, some more than once, and some of them would be much, much wealthier now had they not been (or indeed, had they never married.) I realize my comment's humor, if it had any, would be at your expense, and for that I apologize.
There's really no need to apologize. Or agree with me on divorce or anything else.
Although… if I had to continue the meta-discussion, I’d say that agreeing with someone, like an apology, is giving them a status boost, and disagreeing a status hit, and is even often seen as a direct attack; here again all the status implications are polluting the search for truth… but I’ll stop. You meant to be nice, and for that I thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link