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 -
Idk if this is actually a thing, but I'm recognizing a pattern here (lol). There seems to be a group of people that I've noticed, broadly on the left, that apparently think that saying something I find completely reprehensible in a nicer way, it would make me agree with it more. Like if they asked me nicely enough to rape my daughter, that I'd somehow be convinced (purposefully hyperbolic example). Outside of Aella, the whole SAM (Speaking with American Men) initiative is indicative of this line of thinking. SAM seems to be focused on how to "market" Democrat's ideas to men instead of finding ideas that men actually want. I don't know if this is just me or if anyone else noticed this or if I'm just recognizing too many patterns. To me, it's back asswards, but what the hell do I know.
The right used to feel this way too, didn’t they? Until wokeness got really going.
There was the attitude of, “look, I’m being very polite and reasonable as I make my argument for why Thatcher was right / why it makes me uncomfortable that my home town is being taken over by foreigners. Can’t we just have a civilised conversation about this?”
I suppose that’s not quite the same, as there isn’t the presumption of agreement.
I think the pro-Capitalism and pro-liberal-democracy portions are more prone to thinking that their positions are obviously correct and that if someone doesn’t agree with them then it must be because they didn’t understand the arguments.
That's the real difference for me too. There's less of this "voting against your interest" messaging on the right. It seems that if you disagree with the left, in their eyes, you're either stupid or evil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not just you; I did a post on my Tumblr last week noting it as one of the three recurring elements in discussions about SAM. It's also part of my teacher/classroom analogy, specifically, the 'well, if some of the kids aren't absorbing the lesson, it's because the teacher isn't presenting in properly — she just needs to figure out those kids' particular "learning style" and tailor her instruction accordingly' part. (I'm also reminded a bit of a couple of people I've known who unironically endorsed Orwellian "duckspeak" — though not by that term, of course — as the ideal of human communication.)
But yeah you completely articulated some of my feelings on this subject. Great writeups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For what it's worth I have also noticed this pattern. There seems to be this presumption that disagreement must stem from misunderstandings or poor messaging rather than sincere values differences.
Im not suggesting that we liquidate the undesirables im saying that we should seriously consider the positive effects of mass euthanasia on overall quality of life.
Or even worse, it's because you're stupid or evil (or both).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link