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 love this way of framing it. It's like typical mind fallacy, right? You assume your coworker at the water cooler has the same intentions as you for engaging in conversation, but really you could be miles apart. It's one reason it took me so long to get small talk. Why are we saying a thing that's obvious to both of us?
I have a coworker who drives me up the wall sometimes. She's pretty low information and if you tried to tell her about media bubbles, she'd just look at you blankly. But boy does she have opinions based on whatever her media feeds have shown her that day. She once started going on about something that happened three years ago, and for some reason it was trending in her media feeds and I guess it appeared to be a new story. Luckily I do find that she's open to correction and changing her mind if you go about it carefully.
I find it's best not to correct everything she says, because that just paints me as argumentative. So I let 90% of it go. But when there's something that's really egregious, something that's really easy to falsify, something that's one of my pet issues, I'll just gently say something like, "but have you considered that" or "I see it differently because" or "did you know that-". I like that last one a lot because I find people like this do enjoy those listicles of "interesting facts" because it makes them feel smart.
I like what the other commenter said too about gentle pushback and taking political out of the realm of small talk a bit. People use small talk to make what they think are uncontroversial remarks, accepted by everyone. A gentle "I don't see it that way" just lets them know hey, other people have opinions too, and maybe think next time before you assume I will just blandly agree with you.
But going back to the typical mind thing, as others have noted, it is deeply weird that we have this community. Astonishingly rare. But when I see people like my coworker, I understand why. And like I said, she's open to changing her views. What dismays me is around here with people who have spent time deeply considering and analyzing a topic and have come to a different conclusion than I have, and they're sticking to their guns. Just a reminder that we are all in information bubbles too, all of us. We all start with our own priors, our own sacred cows, and the conclusions we're hoping to reach.
Isn't this just status games? In the workplace continued status communication by polite engagement is necessary for subsequent cooperative potential. Its just not worth it to change an existing dynamic. Ideal solution is to flag oneself as unimportantly heterodox in advance. You know Im not the same as you but I dont care enough to change your mind so dont bother trying to change mine, so lets talk normie shit like baseball or weather where fundamental value flash isn't axiomatic to our functional dynamic.
Let it rip for nonrepeated games though. At house parties I have great fun openly stating my maximalist positions when interrogated because I don't care about my reputation among oneoffs. They can bitch to the host later about the evil nazi that somehow entered the party but thats the hosts fault for inviting me in the first place if he knew I'd accept leaving my cave for a meatspace rando sorting hat ceremony.
More options
Context Copy link
Trying to find the political common ground that’s appropriate for discussion often leaves people uninterested. Suppose you’re a person that has what would pass for radical opinions in the current climate. Would you really want to risk discussing that with someone you aren’t sure you’re on that level with, at work?
There’s a great level of comfort and ease I still have with my childhood friends that I just don’t have with professional colleagues. Even among those who’d I’d describe as friends. With the former we can discuss very morbid topics or perhaps even share unpleasant opinions without forgetting that we confidently know that’s not who the other person is because we’ve known them all their lives and have seen every dimension of their personality growing up.
There’s more than just the axes of personal/professional and small/serious. There’s also boring and interesting and that varies widely with people. You can often tell by the level of engagement and whether they’re more reactive or proactive in the discussion as to whether they have an active interest in the topic or it’s just because it’s a “you” thing. General topics are more accessible at the water cooler or lunch table at break but they’re far less interesting than the ones that would get you the side eye from the booth or table next to you that causes that group to get up from the table and relocate elsewhere because you brought up the Khmer Rogue and Cambodian genocide and how it compares to what’s happening in Gaza.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link