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 appreciate the steelman and I definitely am not a normie and never have been one, and a lot of this I did learn. That said I actually find 1:1 conversations much more manageable with these types because it's so much easier to steer the conversation, and even if it's just you asking questions, you have a lot of power to break the script (if they aren't totally steamrolling you) and have some interesting sparks of life come out of the chat, even if I still would tend to avoid these people when possible because I still don't enjoy the life-script readouts.
In the case I posted though I feel like it's an actual degenerate situation because it's two overly excited people dominating a conversation in a group of 10 or so others, actively cutting them off when trying to pipe in with their own observations, because they just have to get their whole scripts out in turn, and I feel like in that case it is kind of like a child barreling through an antique shop or something, it's like there is no concern shown for one's environment and feels like a kind of rudeness of ignorance that puts me in a bad mood. In those cases you basically need enough social cache to really butt in and change the course of things.
And where I feel especially non-normie is I am the only person I know who ever actually does that, and most others basically do the seal-clap thing of just continuing to try to pipe in additions or laughing politely. Which is to say even in this case most people seem satisfied (or just stay silent miserably) and I wish there was more collective awareness that we could actually include everyone and allow the conversation flow naturally if more people took initiative in directing the flow forcefully.
And I think this points to a kind of false dichotomy which is kind of like the teenage angst of "no one will have deep conversations with me" vs. accept small talk as is. And I think the tertiary option is to actually ubermench things to go the way you want, but you need to have the social cache to do that or else you basically just get looked at funny, and it's very rare for anyone else to put their neck out there so you're on your own.
A-ha! My mistake for missing this angle. I was posting very early this morning due to some insomnia so my mind wasn't very sharp.
In the case you outlined, about these two monopolizing discourse within a group, my perspective would be to 100% not try to change the dynamic no matter what kind of social cache you have. Then, avoid hanging out with these people to the extent possible. If it's a work situation, I can understand that's difficult, but I feel it's the only option.
Let me re-use my "Lauren" example. Fudging her exact age a little to protect privacy, let's say Lauren is about 42 years old. She is divorced. She is on every dating app and none of her dates - ever - goes well. Or maybe the first one goes alright but by date three there are "red flags" everywhere. Would you be shocked - shocked - to learn that my opinion is that Lauren is the problem in these romantic trails to nowhere? Lauren has poor social skills and does not pick up on the clues people have been sending her for, probably, about 30 years. While this may make my tiny heart hurt a little, I am also experienced enough to know that trying to coach a full grown adult through basic social skills is the losingest of all propositions. If they haven't adjusted by now it can be a sign of actual autism or other such disorders but, far, far more likely it is a deep character flaw. Often times it is inherited. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Lauren's mother was very similar and that, perhaps, her father (who I don't hear about) was out of the picture early.
Don't delude yourself into ubermensching. The other eight people in the group aren't going to thank you for your deft navigation of the conversation. They'll feel relieved in the moment and then forget all about it the second the conservation breaks up and the group members go about their day. If you're in a work situation and have to maintain some rapport and not be the weird guy who eats alone in the corner, I'd recommend turning into the "drive-by joke" guy. You see the conversation monopolizers doing their thing and the seal-clappers enduring it. Don't fully join the conversation. Instead, choose a moment to drop in - interrupting is fine - with a little humor. I don't know, something like, "I see Congress is in session. Very good." You'll figure it out. Then, you're still demonstrating that fellow-feeling my original comment touched on but without committing to this zero-win-probability endeavor.
Yeah it's funny, I am very much on the same page, and especially at work sticking your dumb neck out is almost always foolish, and only something I do when I feel like being foolish.
That said, I have very much noticed and appreciated from others what you could call "Chad" conversation moves, and to me, seeing and recognizing those can feel like this moment of profound understanding where it feels good being alive etc. It's like reading certain authors where just like every sentence is perfect, and just appreciating the command of language and context. I think a well lived life includes appreciating ubermensch moments as well as having some good ones of your own.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link