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 -
You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. I am responding with a modhat but this is not a warning and will not be noted on your account, even though your past posting history weighs against you on this.
The reason this is not a warning is because you are plausibly making an effort to understand something, which is good.
The reason I am responding with a modhat is because we have a growing problem with posts like this, namely, posts that begin with the framing that "the Motte" can be helpfully or usefully addressed collectively in connection with particular ideological commitments. I believe this is mistaken as a matter of substance, but even if it weren't, it would be a violation of the rules:
The paradigmatic consensus-building post is "I'm sure you'd all agree..." Lately I have seen too many people approach that from a position of disagreement instead--as here:
You've couched this in sufficiently perspective-taking language that it's not an egregious violation of the rules, but it is nevertheless not the way to approach questions like this. You could (and should) have written your entire post as a clear question without reference to a monolithic Motte: "what do you [whoever is reading] think about these ideas, or this claim?" You don't need to accuse your readers in advance of being wrong about something; if you have a question about what people believe, ask them, don't tell them. If there's a specific ideological position you want to address, address the position, not the people you imagine to be holding it.
"This place" is a website
That's all. You may see some people in other parts of the Internet characterize this as a site catering to some particular ideology, but those people are wrong, often maliciously so, and they tend to spread misconceptions about the community that are harmful to the community. I can't do anything about that in other spaces, but I do what I can to try to stop it from happening here.
(And that is actually kind of an answer to your question, if "the Motte" is what you are interested in understanding: the foundation generally manifests as individualistic and meritocratic, because individuals (not groups) post here and individuals (not groups) get upvotes or downvotes, AAQCs or warnings or bans. But individuals here have many different views on meritocracy and individualism, I'm sure, and honestly I'd be surprised if even 60% of participants here held the beliefs you have, entirely without evidence, attributed to the entire group.)
Heavily endorse this. It's frustrating to have positions put into my mouth that I do not hold. I think many people feel a knee jerk need to defend positions attributed to them and that only reinforces the implied consensus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link