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 -
Lots of people do different things at different times for different reasons. Generally though they do leave positions they hate, but I still agree with you that their behaviour is a bit more self-serving than they really want to admit. Usually, nobody really forced them into that in the first place, and it wasn't even necessary. It just made things easier for them. They often stay just long enough in those questionable but very well paying positions to get fuck-you money, and then pseudo-retire to more socially-conscious positions that earn enough to get by, and they donate just enough for it to be noteworthy, but not enough to really feel the hit all that much.
But tbh I think this is to some degree hardwired human male behaviour, and to some other degree simply game-theoretically optimal. If you're young and unestablished, meaning you need to carve out your place, you want to be aggressive and competitive, which includes morally dubious behaviour; When you're older and already established, you want to be cautious and close off as many avenues of attack as possible. You can be cautious from the start and probably will do fine, but not reach quite as high; You can stay aggressive and keep the top a little bit longer, but you risk losing at the young man's game catastrophically.
More options
Context Copy link