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 point that I generally give the Moralists is that it's pretty damn icky to be handing someone hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation while knowing that they have engaged in morally outrageous and/or antisocial behavior. Having it come out that someone has committed an egregious act, and then paying them huge sums of money that they are, let us grant, contractually entitled to sure feels like you're rewarding them/overlooking behavior that, were it known earlier, would likely have disqualified them from such a payment.
But to the Sportalists, I agree that what happens within one's 'personal' life is just that, personal, up until it actually harms some cognizable social interest and/or directly impacts their performance on the field. As such I can easily ignore someone's sexuality and/or taboo sexual proclivities, their general bad attitude/snobby/narcissistic behavior, their profligate spending habits, their drug use (in the off-season), their relationship with their kids or spouse. If I had to track the personal lives of every single player of every single team in every single sport I followed I simply wouldn't be able to enjoy the sport for the sport.
Indeed, I'm somewhat inclined to even ignore domestic disputes even involving violence, since those are inherently he-said-she-said situations and are best settled privately anyway.
One thing I'm also not sure how to feel about is the whole "paying your debt to society" bit where if someone is arrested, charged, and convicted of a serious offense and serves their punishment, are we okay saying "that's in the past, now here is your 6-7 figure salary back."
Because there is an argument that once someone has committed such an offense, it's probably better to let someone else have a chance to take home that reward, instead. Few people's skills are truly so irreplaceable that they're the only one capable of filling that role. But the whole point of punishment is to make things right and allow us to 'move on' past the criminal behavior. Or is it?
(I'm specifically thinking of Alec Baldwin as I type this)
What did/didn't he do?
Well that was a slipup, I meant to write ALEC Baldwin.
But Adam Baldwin was found guilty of thoughtcrime a long while back for supporting Sad Puppies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And this is the entire reason woke is dominant in the first place, and it's also why the more uncommon your skill or interests is in your childhood, the more anti-woke you are as a baseline (and why those people- that we usually call 'nerds' or grey tribe in general- tend to tolerate more social weirdness both evil and benign).
Why would you think that? If they're offensive to corporate society and we have a surplus of the similarly-able, why shouldn't we just (mission-)kill them and move on? (Alternately: is a mission-kill equivalent to a catastrophic-kill in both intent and result? And if it isn't, why wasn't the writer of 2 Arms and a Head justified in his desire to die?)
In a liberal society, obviously yes. The entire concept of "debt to society" is that society still needs you after the fact so the punishment has to be finite- this is why labor-dominant societies differentiate between finite and infinite (death) punishment, and why capital-dominant societies favor permanent mission-kill as punishment (which is why the relatively new categories of DV and sex offenses- both crimes against the capital associated gender, mind you- are permanent).
Yes, that's why woke is both creeping and inherently destructive (insert C.S. Lewis "approval of their own conscience" here) in a way liberalism is not, and it's why "no ethical consumption under
capitalismliberalism" is so popular among the woke: liberalism, in socioeconomic circumstances too thin to sustain it, has no valid good-feeling counter aside from "no u".More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link