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 -
Reading this immediately reminded me of the Goomba Fallacy, which is an example of the Association Fallacy that you're broadly speaking to. I'm not normally one to bandy around fallacies, but it fits here.
To discuss the rationality of it requires specific examples. In some cases, the association is utterly ridiculous, like in the Goomba Fallacy. Another example that comes to mind is the notion that people in "red states" or "blue states" ought to suffer or experience material consequences as penance for the sins of their political leaders. Wine moms in North Carolina should not be denied natural disaster relief as penance for their sin of voting for Trump, not to mention the countless Democrats living there. On the other hand, some associations are quite viscous and difficult to overlook. The common pop-feminist idea — I've been victimized by a man, therefore I should act aloof and oppositional toward most men — may legitimately have protective value. Sure, #notallmen, but I think a young woman keeping her distance from young men she hasn't personally vetted may be protective, even if it is irrational. And, of course, plenty of associations are pre-rational, made entirely on the basis of in-group identification or out-group animosity.
The question that remains for me is how to distinguish between counterproductive, over-fitted associations vs. ultimately helpful ones. I think perhaps the solution is trying not to rely on just one demographic variable. Instead of screening against "men" as a category, perhaps it's best to screen against men of certain backgrounds, men who appear impoverished, men who have drinking problems, etc. so the associations can get more granular and actionable.
More options
Context Copy link