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 -
By "X theory explanation", do you mean "if you are an X theorist, you could explain it like this" or "if [your opponents who are responsible for this state of affairs] are X theorists, this is how they would justify their choice"?
Assuming it's the former, it doesn't seem like a hard exercise. I'd think that the mistake that camp pro-SJ does in this and many other scenarios is assuming that just because certain minorities have inferior SES nationally on average, they always and everywhere can not possibly be at a local advantage or have something to bestow withholding which on an ethnic basis can be unfair to individuals and ultimately to the detriment of all. Maybe there is a white or Asian teenager who grew up over in the neighbourhood of the black church, in a particular subcommunity where all his friends and social superiors are black. The only status that he would be feasibly placed to pursue in his life is status in his local community, which is significantly gatekept by the black church in question, and even if they aren't formally rejecting him, in practice he would obviously, visibily be out of place if he tried to join and participate.
The easiest way to make the mistake-theoriness of the view stark is to then treat both sides as sum utilitarians. If we compelled the black church to make an explicit effort to admit more people who look like him, would this on balance do more good by helping people like the hypothetical black-neighbourhood kid (or any number of other effects which I didn't address, such as the sense of civic belonging that may be fostered by everyone being subject to the same rules), or more bad by making the job of running a $disadvantaged_minority church even more onerous than it already is (and accordingly keeping the black-white SES gap greater, with all the disutility this entails)? Presumably the SJ utilitarian response is the latter, but are they right about this?
More options
Context Copy link