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 -
The "I don't believe this but you do" is a form of "If you believe premise A and premise B then behavior C doesn't fit." This forum often engages in this towards the left. And while often the person using this logic is bad at modeling the thoughts of the group they're applying it to, that's not inherently a problem with the form of argument.
"Arguments as soldiers" is a way to make attempts at persuasion sound nefarious. Of course they are attempting to persuade you! It isn't a secret. It's a nihilistic world view that frames the world as two sides, and one is pre-committed to always defect you no matter what you will do, but wants to see if you are a sucker who will cooperate. You can never earn their respect, never reach some sort of compromise, therefore the correct response is maximum fuck you. I won't say such a person would never possibly exist, but it treats the extreme as the norm. It's also self-fulfilling, because viewed from the opposite side you literally are playing defect bot.
The existence of people who have contradicting goals is not some new phenomenon, it's the norm of society. Regardless of what other people do, you should hold to your own values. This is the right's version of the left's "bad faith" exemption. The left loves this similar game - "We stand for tolerance but by having a limitless definition of harm we can shun you and still be tolerant!" Now it's "If the enemy tries to use our values against us that gives us license to never consider whether the accusation is correct!" The atheist vs Christian context of the meme is rather ironic - at the risk of being the atheist in the meme, I'm still fairly confident that Jesus' big thing was being so committed to his own values that he'd let the opponent "win" thereby convincing the opposition of his righteousness.
More options
Context Copy link