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 -
I have been thinking about this a lot recently. There's always a discussion that goes like this:
"50% of Group X think Group Y are partially responsible for Group X violence against Group Y. But, only 3% of Group X would be willing to actually commit violence against Group Y."
Group Xer: "See, that proves Group X is 97% peaceful."
Group Yer: "See, that proves that 50% of Group X is violent."
I have always tried to lean toward the former interpretation. Citizens of fascist or communist tyrannies who supported and participated in their regime are AFAIK never seen as completely blameless. And as the violence becomes more egregious, it gets harder and harder to believe it.
The way I see a situation of X and Y there is that a Group Xer has an obligation to think about it the latter way, and a Group Yet has an obligation to think about it the former way, at least if getting at the truth is a priority. Because, as you pointed out, the pattern shows that such people will almost always be biased in the other way, anyone in that situation who trusts his base judgment on this is untrustworthy as a seeker of truth.
A lot of the conversation, I've noticed, has to do with trying to label that 47% that's not peaceful but not violent. Too many people try to cast advocacy for violence as a form of violence when, of course, advocacy for something isn't the same as that thing. But it could be morally just as bad to call for violence as it is to commit violence. Could, but also maybe not. Which is inconvenient if you want to claim half your outgroup are bloodthirsty monsters. So a Group Yer can't afford to show nuance around words and violence and must elide between the two. OTOH, a Group Xer will wiggle and wiggle and wiggle until the wiggle room is a gap that you could pass the Milky Way through. They'll split every hair, pick every nit, look at everything in every possible angle and degree of squinting until they can convince themselves that these people are justified in calling for violence or condoning violence in this particular case (which is every case).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link