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 -
This is still quite lacking. The only actual criticism is an underlying claim that effectively says "rationalism and rationalist communities like those under Yud are more concerned about social approval than reason."
This would be a fair criticism if shown, but it's not shown. It seems to me at least to be motivated primarily off your shock that Yud or Scott Alexander might disagree with you on something you personally consider simple, and instead of asking "could they actually have different perspectives?", you assume it must just be a bad faith appeal to the bay area zeitgeist.
Now this is an actual argument. It makes actual meat filled claims
That categories are being poorly redefined in a purely circular manner
That the redefinitions have observable economic impact.
They also have observable moral and ethical impact.
Now ethical and moral questions are something hard for rationalism to really tackle because they're so subjective. After all, something like a Muslim claiming it is immoral to eat pigs is correct from their moral perspective. So those are just like, ok it's against your personal moral views. Fair enough.
But we can actually address the other ones, particularly if there is an observable economic impact here. We could look at more progressive countries and compare them to less progressive ones. Do countries that allow or condone transition tend to do better or worse than ones that don't? Or do US states that condone it do better than ones that don't? Or we could look at the before/after economic status of a country/state after a relevant law or ruling happened and see if anything changed. Or whatever other sorts of tests.
There may be some confounding factors here, but we can actually test it. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but you've made a real criticism at least.
More options
Context Copy link