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 -
Sure you can cut them out of the things you control, but you can't stop them from making their own groups and get people who don't even know about the controversy. And wait this ignores something important, most of these people don't show obvious signs beforehand. You can't kick someone out for something like murder before they murder obviously, this isn't Minority Report.
And if there was some reliable way to know, then why aren't we blaming their family, friends, teachers, coworkers, and other people in their life who should be even more aware?
What bullet am I biting by acknowledging that some other scotsman could be be criminal?
Why does it bring shame on every Scotsman?
Then it's not collective responsibility if you allow all the people who aren't responsible and don't actively support bad things to dodge blame! You agree with me then to not blame others.
Yes exactly, and all what I've given is motivated reasoning I've seen people engaged in! For example, the "you're just lying about your opposition and covering it up" thing I could accuse of Yud can be seen here in the replies to Mamdani
That might be true, but it's generally related to their own personal experiences feeling uncomfortable and not the actual thing in question "I'm responsible for what someone else did". I doubt you'll find many examples of someone pleading guilty as an accomplice to murder cause just because they were in a shared group.
Yes, this dynamic changes in particular highly organized situations where you actually can kick people in a meaningful way.
The example I typically give is of police. A bad city A cop not getting fired is the responsibility of their city A police chief, but it's not the responsibility of a city B police chief, because the latter can't meaningfully do anything. He can say "we are against bad cops in city B", but he can't remove city A cop. Responsibility comes from actual ability to control others, and most of the time you don't actually have that at all.
If you're the head of the "Dog Lovers club" and kick someone out, they can just go make their own "Dog Likers" club. You can not remove them from representing themselves as a dog enthusiast, and newbies (and even many vet dog enthusiasts who don't pay attention) won't really know the difference so they can often gain influence no matter what you do. And that's if you even know ahead of time, which you probably won't (refer back to the first part of how we don't blame others close in their life).
Yes you can! The Zizians were kicked out for pre-crime. No superhuman precogs required.
Sorry, wrong subject for that sentence. I have to bite the bullet and accept collective responsibility for my countryman's actions if I want to be consistent. You have already set yourself apart.
I know that there's an incentive to give myself a pass by claiming he isn't part of my group, but that would be a lie. He's a scotsman, and scotsmen murder.
That's tautological. The people who aren't responsible aren't responsible while the people who are, are. We simply set different boundaries. People can dodge blame by genuinely not being blameworthy.
They're wrong. There's not much more to add to that.
I've seen variations of "We failed at..." and "I wish I could have done something about..." alongside other implicit claims of responsibility. "I'm responsible for..." isn't a common saying in any part of society (unless it's something boring like a task at work), so I'm not surprised it isn't explicit here either.
Consider Autism Speaks. They are roundly and consistently criticized by other autism advocacy organizations for their stances. If they do something, it doesn't reflect on those other organizations because they have been kicked out of the cool kids club.
Were they "kicked out"? Seems like they were still going around as rationalists after. And was it actually for pre-crime? If so, how did they know and why did no one report their evidence of upcoming murders to the police?
Wait, but don't these contradict? Aren't you, a Scotsman, genuinely not blameworthy of another random Scotsman commiting murder?
You're saying there's collective responsibility of Scotsmen, while also saying that Scotsmen are able to dodge blame and not be responsible.
Ok it's possible. Genuinely can't contest what people might actually mean even when they don't say it cause you are right that people don't admit their mistakes often. I don't think it's common regardless but we can't test it well either way then.
Seems like an awful example, autism speaks is still the largest autism related advocacy group around and one of the only groups anyone knows about. If they were "kicked out of the cool kids club", it didn't seem to actually matter. Autism Speaks for most of the population not deeply immersed into the autism community is autism advocacy, and they don't even know there is a rift.
If there's any lesson here in that example, it's that kicking people out doesn't work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link