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 -
You know, "being in the top 5-6% of educational achievement isn't good, this is insufficient" is a pretty blackpilling line of thought in itself. Imagine how screwed you'd be to be in the bottom 94%. That's almost everyone, and I guess we're just sweeping them under the rug and calling them bad dummy dumbs who don't count.
(This is independent of whether it is, or should be, sufficient to practice law or any other specific field. Law seems like a pretty horrible profession even in 'good times.')
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that it isn't particularly impressive and just an OK result, specifically within the context of academic achievement.
It means plenty of areas are cut off for him and he won't be part of the elite due to his educational achievements, but still could be through other avenues.
Plenty of areas work like this and if anything, education is particularly forgiving. Being in the top 6-7% means you likely get a decent job, just not the top cadre of jobs and you don't get to choose freely.
It also means that you likely should avoid some professional areas due to how bimodal they are. Being the least talented person at a law firm, in investment banking or management consulting is fucking miserable and a setup for failure, with law being the biggest risk due to the low bar of entry.
Right, and what I'm saying is that being in the top 5% being regarded "not particularly impressive and just an OK result, specifically within the context of academic achievement" is blackpilling. I agree that's not impressive for the elite world, but no one's talking about the elite here. It is not a failure to not be part of the elite. The elite should not be the inherent frame through which we view the world, such that "he still could be [part of the elite] through other avenues" is the consolation prize, and not "he has many options for a non-elite but good life available." If being in the top 6-7% means you likely get a decent job, with some hedging there, that's pretty blackpilling as an idea. I guess it depends on what we mean by "decent"; and if "decent" is only somewhat achievable by this portion of the population, that's the starting point for social upheaval.
Again, it's not about whether specific professional areas are a good or bad fit -- and I agree law, investment banking or management consulting aren't -- it's about how we talk about people's achievement, and whether we have a world where people who aren't in the top 1-2% on any measure can expect to have a good life. Not an elite life, not a fantastic splendorous life, just a good life.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link