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 -
Yup. It's internecine war on the left. The foundational group desire is atheism. This part is the sacred, in Robin Hanson's terminology. There is a long history of trying to wield science as a sword for atheism, but in doing so, one runs headlong into pesky intellectual challenges. The core of this conflict is how to deal with them.
One common attempt is to just deny that there's any problem to be solved. The charitable view is to observe that such folks have mistaken methodological constraints for a metaphysical theory. But you sort of can't keep it from bubbling up, so you have to keep denying, keep refusing to talk about it. For example, since mathematics is so useful to the scientific method, it is natural to desire to include some grounding there. But, like, how does that work? What is the philosophy of mathematics, and how does it fit into the scientismist view? Let's not talk about it.
On the morality front, it has left most of the left just grasping for a naive form of meta-ethical relativism. When poked, there are often half-hearted appeals to game theory. I think that both sides of the internecine war do feel like this is their best grounding, but it's sort of interesting that one side just doesn't actually understand even the most basic components of what game theory is about. That's why they're surprised by the most basic concept in game theory - unilateral defection. The other side, the wokies, grok unilateral defection. They grok that once it has been accepted that it is declared not possible to reach the truth of a matter via rational argumentation, when the only thing left is game theory, one can simply move to brainwashing, shaming, canceling, deplatforming, intimidating, and maybe even having struggle sessions or genocides.
The thin line of hope for scientism on these issues was, "Since we have no clue what else to do, but we're trying to prop up science as the answer to all the things, I guess what we'll do is just ask the scientists to answer everything for us." That ran hard into unilateral defection. When the scientists are the new priesthood, it's pretty straightforward (and unsurprising to religious folks) to see that a simple strategy is to just corrupt the priesthood. The biggest difference between the corruption of the academic priesthood and the ratheism/atheism+ schism was that the former took time and was done with most people somewhat unaware, while the latter was quite sudden and visible. Neither is surprising; it's just unilateral defection, fighting the sectarian war by the only means remaining once one abandons intellectual rigor in favor of scientism.
More options
Context Copy link