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 -
Yeah, I think I would respect arguments from either side acknowledging this and arguing about what that threshold should be. I don't see a lot of that, I don't see a lot of nuance or discussion of tradeoffs in burdens of proof, I mostly see extreme all/none arguments from people. Though I suppose at lot of that is observation bias: centrists who have nuanced opinions are more likely to stay silent and don't make angry rants about the pure good or pure evil of rich people.
It is interesting to me though that the bias in the right/left about the burden of proof is the opposite as to what it is for actual crime though. Normally, the left demands a high burden of proof and wants to look out for the rights of people accused of crimes, while the right wants harsh judgements and penalties. Is it just that the left is pro poor people and the right is pro rich and so the burden flips depending on who is being accused? Except that there are tons of counter examples of the left hating certain poor people and right hating certain rich people. But I suppose if one of those people were being accused the left and right would support or oppose strict burden of proofs according to their like of that type of person, so is it just the case that the left and right have no coherent stance on what burdens of proof should be in general, and only have opinions on them downstream of their other biases?
Another complication is that this right vs. left judgment is context-dependent, based on the particular society you're looking at. In a lot of cases, each individual judgment may be more directional than absolute--for example, a rightist might say "our society is too error-prone in judging individual rich people guilty of exploitation; it should do that less," while a leftist in the same society might draw the opposite conclusion. Move the same people to a different society, and they may both find themselves on the same side of a relative center that is positioned differently.
(Also, the leftist critique here is a classical Marxist economic-centered view; the woke left seems to have no particularly strong view of wealth per se, as their societal critique is identity-centered. ...I admit, I'm amused by the the potential question of whether someone identifies as a rich person.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link