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 -
Aristocracy is when a group of people get together to declare themselves the elite and give themselves special privileges. It requires some intelligence, yes, but far more important is a particular social skill, which you might call 'leadership' or 'douchebaggery'. If you don't have it --- and you don't -- then you won't be among the aristocratic class when it forms. And if you inherit the position, you'll be shuffled off to somewhere you don't like.
How would you know? This is just a pointless insult, layered on top of wishful thinking against my position. Actually it would be really easy to enact intelligence hierarchies that are more rewarding than now, the fundamental issue is too many dumb people. The solution I think is to go form a small competitive intelligence hierarchy civ somewhere else and to have it outcompete the equality civs over time.
Reading your comments is sufficient.
It doesn't work. The people with the high leadership-quotient take over these groups, if they become significant, every time.
No, it's not.
What does that have to do with outcompeting equality civs? Of course we want good leaders.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link