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 -
What you meant made no sense. You wouldn't have bought Twitter even if Musk got absolutely no subsidies.
It most likely determined the result of the American election, so it had a huge impact on the world.
You wouldn't do anything.
How do you know that?
What do I need to clarify for you? It seemed quite simple to me.
Because you wouldn't be in a position to, not even if Musk stole no money.
How, specifically, would you purchase Twitter, even if Elon Musk stole absolutely no money from you.
The premise is if I did have that money. Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it. Do you remember the breakfast question by the way?
No, the only premise was that Musk is not given any money at your expense. So outside of a tax reduction equal to you contribution to the subsidies he received, you'd have no extra money regardless of how much he received.
Why? Lots of billionaires could have ought Twitter, and didn't.
Are those billionaires me?
That was not the premise.
If he behaved fully justly some philosopher-king would have the money and we'd have cool things with it instead of a buggy social media website, increasingly censored.
That's not relevant, the question shows the flaw in the general logic of "Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it."
If you didn't mean "if he hadn't stolen that money from me", maybe you should say that other thing you actually meant.
We were talking about whether or not he's a great man of history, not whether or not he behaved fully justly. Genghis Khan was a great man of history. Stalin was a great man of history. Hitler was a great man of history. They are not what I'd describe as behaving fully justly.
Elon Musk's web app from the 90s that was merged and acquired and never seen again just wasn't impressive to me. He's a lucky upper-mediocre man and it's clear as day on his Twitter account. I think people only find him impressive because they wish they had the money, have just world bias and construct a narrative where he's a better man than them so he deserves the money. Meanwhile they undervalue more impressive things like brilliant philosophy because there's no sex or money to be jealous of there.
"Impressive" is an adjective that implies someone is impressed. If no one is impressed, it's not impressive. If you are the only one who is impressed, it's fairly cheap as impressions go.
I'm in the cohort who are quick to say (or at least think) that Musk is cringe, a salesman, and doesn't deserve the money in any cosmic sense. Unfortunately for those who grasp at the label of greatness, greatness is not about just deserts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link