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 -
This is by definition a subjective, not an objective, topic. There can't be an objective evaluation of what values one should hold.
Instrumentality is an objective metric.
What ought to be done is subjective. What can be done is objective.
My point, and Machiavelli's, is that a certain conduct is necessary to attain and retain power in the first place, independently of one's ultimate aims. Making it a necessary precondition to the enactment of any political program.
Whether one should engage in politics is a subjective question, but once one answers yes, the requirements placed on one are the same regardless of ideology. And they include the necessity to destroy one's enemies that they may not rally against one.
I'll agree that effectiveness can be objectively measured. But "principles are for suckers" isn't a statement on effectiveness, it's a value judgement of what a person should do. Thus, it is not (and can't be) objective.
A "sucker" is a victim of one's own credulity or benevolence. This is an objective category in instrumental terms. A cooperate-bot in a population that contains defectors is a sucker, this is not a value judgement, it's a purely analytic statement of fact.
You either are putting yourself at the mercy of your enemies thereby threatening your ability to effect your agenda or you are not.
You can only argue this is subjective if you're willing to say that engaging in effective politics is not your goal, which is axiomatically excluded from this discussion given effective politics is the topic.
No, this is a value judgement. Perhaps you mean it as an analytic statement of fact, but that is not what "sucker" means. It is purely a derogatory statement about one's belief that someone is foolish.
From Merriam-Webster:
From Oxford:
I think my usage is perfectly appropriate. But it's not like I've made a mystery of what I meant. You certainly seem to have understood it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link