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 -
Communication doesn't work that way. Unless something legal is involved, being too literal is a bad thing and ignores what is actually being communicated.
Communication absolutely works that way. What you're missing is it's quite possible that ChickenOverlord and sarker realized the implicit comparison was being made, felt it was wrong, but couldn't challenge it without it being made explicit -- and the best way to make it explicit was to treat it as if it hadn't been made.
In this case, it's even less reasonable because erwgv3g34 in fact DID make explicit the comparison -- he said one person could produce 1000x the value of a "regular man". Then SubstantialFrivolity denied that it was possible for one person to produce 1000x the value of another, leaving out the "regular man", which is denying the specific (that someone could make 1000x the value of a "regular man") by claiming a general rule (that no one can make 1000x the value of anyone else). Basically your interpretation privileges the "this phenomenon does not exist" side.
It's certainly possible they were strategically pretending not to understand. If the assumption is reasonable (and "that doesn't mean someone who produces zero value" is reasonable), strategically pretending not to understand is a way to derail the conversation and is just plain dishonest. You can just respond to the whole thing including the implicit assumption--yes they can say "I didn't mean that", but then they're the one being dishonest since they obviously did. If you really expect that response you can say "even assuming you mean 1000 times an average worker, that still doesn't make sense because...."
Your standard encourages useless nitpicking. The things that normal people say are full of implicit assumptions and expecting them not to use any just makes things worse for everyone. It isn't helpful to not let people say "the sun rises in the east" because there are places where it rises in the west.
My standard encourages nitpicking, yes, but it's often not useless. Your standard encourages putting one over on people by allowing the use of implicit assumptions while getting the benefit of the statement without the qualification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link