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 -
No.
With that cleared up, if millions could be saved if I let demons devour my child, maybe they should craft an electoral platform to accomplish that same good... without requiring me sacrifice my child! You know, The Lottery was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual.
I don't negotiate with hostage takers.
…Are you sure? Would you literally send every human being on Earth to Hell if it meant saving your child, and your child alone? If the answer is yes, do you believe this is a moral position? (I could sympathize with feeling that if push came to shove you couldn't press the button. But I would regard this as a case of my personal affections overwhelming my conscience. I would, in the cold light of day, recognize that I was acting immorally, even if I could not help myself.)
Not with hostage takers, no. If there were some bizarre natural occurrence where my daughter had to be dissected to provide the cure for all mankind, or everyone would die.... maybe. Maybe they'd still have to kill me first.
But if a bunch of psychopaths have decided murdering my daughter is arbitrarily inseparable from their plan for a global utopia because reasons, just shutup, then no. I chose my daughter over my dead body every time. You don't get to create a moral dilemma and then benefit from being the "lesser evil" in it. It's a lie. They are the greater evil by virtue of having created the situation in the first place, and they'll do it again!
Well okay, but that's… not remotely what this thread has been about. This started out as an attempt on my part to find a circumstance in which you would deem a right-wing platform too morally heinous to support even if it would be advantageous to you personally. The Hitler-Khan administration would be the ones doing the killing, here. This is not about any kind of moral dilemma constructed by the Left, this is not meant to be an analogy for any particular current political question - it is about me probing the theoretical limits of your worldview, and wanting to confront whether you accept in principle that there could be a right-wing platform you would reject on moral grounds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link