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 -
I'm not actually "selling out"; I barely care about staying on the jury longer, I just care about the outcome of this case less.
When there's actual injustice. Here the "punishment" is transferring money from someone who's already in debt and doesn't spend it well, to someone who spends it slightly better. It have some sympathy for Chad, but he's not going to prison, nor does this burn his net worth or financial prospects, since they're already ash.
That's the problem: everyone wants to remove suffrage from people they don't like, but how do you prevent your allies from being disenfranchised (or avoid bad decisions from them, despite being "allies", that were ironically negated by your "enemies")? Children don't have suffrage, because almost everyone grows up such that it has never been exploited. Some felons don't have suffrage, arguably this has been exploited, but it's mitigated because convicting someone isn't guaranteed, and convicting a sizeable fraction of the population would raise eyebrows from even some radicals.
Yeah, I understand that better than anything. People never want to restrict suffrage in a way that would hurt them or their allies, and always want to target their enemies. I said in another comment in this chain, that the problem is in exclusionary systems, a motivated set of agents will try to exploit the rules in a way that is always more detrimental to the system than exploits that are available to blanket systems. I'm unsure if it's a solvable problem, creating a strictly fair system of suffrage the isolates voting towards agents with a sense of duty to their fellow man and an intelligent long term view towards the prospering of the country and its people. Universal Suffrage is a lot like a market in this regard. It creates price signals for peoples political desires. Shockingly most of those signals are very self-serving, short term benefits, but not all, and its hard to parse the good from the bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link