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 don't think it is forcing kids to do things that makes them agentic per se, as opposed to exposing them to different things and having an environment that ensures they engage in various healthy activities. Forcing people typically tends to do the opposite, it raises them to be conformative (unless they turn rebellious as a result of being forced).
Note that I am not against promoting sports or physical activity for kids, I took issue with forcing people to do things in the specific way anti_dan advocated for.
I disagree, though I totally see your point and agree with it. I'm of the opinion that in the modern world, one must embrace the inevitable upper-middle-class-white-person cycle of periodically inventing a new sport ("rich climbing") so that white kids have something they can compete in. It's great to expose kids to lots of different kinds of things they can do! I often joke that Lionel Messi, in a world without soccer, would be a short Argentine mechanic with a weird ability to do things with his feet, no one would know he was one of the greatest athletes of all time. It's important to try a variety of things. But, I disagree with the idea that it should be left to chance: kids should be forced to try a variety of things.
Fundamentally where we differ is here:
The majority of great innovations come out of restrictions. Most modern American men's fashion stems from essentially three places: military uniforms, prison uniforms, or prep school/ivy league/country club dress codes. Innovations to look good while skirting those regulations lead to essentially all male fashion today.
Restrictions and constraints can exist in a system that allows freedom; they don't have to come from being forced. You simply remove the incentives and conditions that enable participation in outcomes you don't want, and introduce barriers to them, while simultaneously creating pathways and support for the outcomes you do want.
It is pretty simple, and all about system design. Kids are naturally curious and become bored if they don't do anything. You create a system where they have the option to participate in all the activities you want them to participate in (and of course you can and should encourage them to continue doing those when they become hard to promote resilience, hardwork and grit, and there are several ways of achieving this without having to use force), and at the same time just don't have the activities you don't want them to participate in (for example just don't give them internet access/electronics devices if you don't want them to be hijacked by their phone all the time). Lionel Messi became himself because he had access to soccer, and there were no competing distractions that diverted his energy away from soccer. The system was conducive to creating intrinsic passion in Lionel, which is necessary for success. It wouldn't have occurred if he was in the type of system anti_dan advocated for. I know because forced P.E. in school never motivated anyone around me into becoming better; and also because when people were allowed to do whatever they want, rather than being forced to participate in the specific activity that was chosen that day, it didn't result into them becoming lazy or growing up into someone who never does physical activity for health.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link