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 -
Imaginary bailey of 100% strong mind control : everything is controlled by one ideology, no dissenting centers of power. People have no independent minds, they just receive the transmissions the elites send, when they deem something not worth censoring.
Imaginary bailey of 0% mind control: people vote and buy only in accordance with their intimate conviction, deep desire, and pure, untainted knowledge. you cannot buy any influence at all. censorship never works. The centers of power perfectly represent the ideological population distribution.
The mottes, our true positions: golden middle of enlightened centrism, haggling on 20-80% mind control. Land of on the one hand, on the other hand.
This conversation is each of us arguing against a bailey the other doesn't actually wish to defend.
For example, it would be silly to try to represent the population's beliefs 1-to-1 (using a stringent form of ideological AA) in, say, hollywood, or newspapers. Is this not obvious? It's one thing to occasionally force a woman or a conservative in to make sure there's a little bit of everything, and prove they are not excluded, it's another to force equal representation. AA devolves into completely unmeritocratic fixed roles for everyone, without regard for ability or interest: the 8th employee must be a 30 yo black creationist, 9th a 50 yo redhead anti-vax woman, etc.
If you see attractive people on a boat drinking Trademark, or a 4x4 Trademark driving though the wilderness on TV, it can move you, and if so, it does add to your enjoyment of the product later. Thank you michael jordan for making me feel like michael jordan when I put on these michael jordan shoes.
It can also inform you of a sale or a new product that alone can meet your peculiar needs, but that's standard ad apologism.
The deeper question is whether the ad can just totally subvert your 'true wishes', or if it is limited in its effects, can even in some cases bring you something positive, or reveal your true wishes. The same goes for political influence: I don't think you can convince people of anything, censor anything, buy any idiot the presidency. There are limits to what this mind control/nudging can achieve.
More options
Context Copy link