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 -
I think the more salient commonality is that both seem to be very adjacent to a general US (and to a lesser degree more widely Western) tendency towards universalism. It is considered quite inappropriate to openly say that you want to live out your life pursuing some goals that are only supposed to bring utility to you or some bounded set of people around you, at least not unless you have come up with some particularly dank rationalisation for why this would actually serve the following; no, everything you do ultimately has to at least superficially be rationalised as being for the greater good of all of humanity, and every step you take has to be evaluated in the light of whether it brings you closer to that goal. This way of thinking is reinforced at every turn, from the superhero movies you watch at age 6 and ads about environmentalism that bombard you on public transport to admissions essays, research papers (especially in politically important topics such as AI) and grant applications.
EA, of course, is the culmination of this, attained by actually taking real steps to follow through on your declared beliefs, making you something like the universalist counterpart to the religious weirdo who actually concludes that screaming and pointing sharp objects at people to save them from hellfire is well worth it; but wokeness, too, is premised on "there should be a reasonable way to absolve myself from any responsibility for the plight of $minority forever" being off the table.
Eh, I don't think you get side-eyed for wanting to be able provide for you and yours, but then, it's probably only really laudable if you're not already of means.
(Granted, what I am describing is the underdog story, and Americans probably love that even more than universalism.)
More options
Context Copy link
As with command economies, logistics and intelligence tend to be a problem with such universalism. One's knowledge of and ability to influence a situation do diminish the further it is from you, for space and time are yet real obstacles. So if you contribute one eight-billionth of an improvement to all eight billion people, you can be far less sure that you're having an impact - or if you are, even the sign of the impact - compared to what you could do and know if you were keeping your efforts and sights focused nearby.
Like many things, it's a tradeoff between efficiency/efficacy and security: generally, (much) more total good can be done through people looking after themselves, but on the other hand, that will produce more conflicts and do less to look after the most vulnerable. So how can we balance that? Well, since it's a tradeoff, probably not by wholly disregarding either side of the equation, no matter how more fashionable the other side may be. (That's still not a specific plan, though, but I don't have any particular insights beyond that right now.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link