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 guess I see that. I am libertarian-adjacent... I've spent time arguing that argument and I think the devil is in the details. They tend to smuggle a bunch of assumptions into the "is theft argument" even if the core of the argument is the same as mine. Assumptions about the role of government and the necessity of funding it. The President has no clothes argument is meant to convey that the law can be without real governmental purpose unlike most taxes.
I see what you are saying about the noncentral fallacy argument. You are right it does apply. I also understand how it can be abused. However I feel that leaves me at an impasse. To me this argument is not prescriptive, but descriptive. I would love for someone to prove to me this is not how the government functions, it's not now how societies function. Calling this the noncentral fallacy (even if the shoe fits) is essentially trying to ignore the actual meat of the argument to argue over the colloquial definition of violence. "The logic is sound but you can't call it violence because people don't want to think about it like that", feels like an appeal to lemmings and ostriches. Idk how to craft the verbiage to get around that counterpoint. And so it feels like the attribution to a fallacy is akin to attempting to silence the argument. The noncentral fallacy is in of itself a rhetorical trick.
With the qualification that it's not absolving the perpetrator of blame or evil spirit. I suppose I can accept that the words themselves are not directly violence from a definitional standpoint. But from a functional standpoint I think someone acting with "evil" intentions towards you, and using words as a medium for those actions merits a response that might heuristically map towards words->violence.
More options
Context Copy link