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 -
That question presupposes that a) those two things are orthogonal, and b) that you know the answers to the latter queries. If you don't, and if lineage correlates to interests and aggression, then who someone's father is can be eminently worth caring about.
Are you trying to suggest that a "white man" would never wish death upon another "white man"? If I "pressupose" i do so with ample reason. Nor do I believe that you can extract more accurate answers to the latter queries from the color of one's skin thai I can from context clues like how someone speaks, how they dress, and to what God or gods they pray too.
So as with Opt-Out I pose the question again, do you really believe that I should care more about who's someone father is than whether that person shares my interests?
In the nicest possible way, you seem to be aggressively working to misunderstand the point.
I am saying, and the point is very clear, that the colour of one's skin and other matters of parentage is a big context clue.
The only context clue worth paying attention to? No, obviously. More relevant at some times than others, depending on the availability of other context? Yes, obviously. But you seem to be so offended by the statement of an obvious fact that you reach immediately for attempted gotchas that don't make sense.
And "in the nicest possible way" you seem to be tying yourself in knots to avoid answering the question.
It's only a "gotcha" if you think you might be in the wrong.
I answered the question above and you ignored it. No, it is stupid to care about whether someone's daddy was a gangbanger if they are currently pointing a gun at you. You no longer need to calculate their likely propensity for violence and aggression, because you are currently discovering it for yourself. Would have been pretty good for you if you'd had the wit to think about these things in advance but, hey, too late now. Empricism, baby.
If you have ground truth information, you don't need prediction. If you know somebody well, and you know he's a great guy, you have no reason for caring about his parentage. If you are, say, devising an immigration strategy, or whether to trust somebody you don't know well, or predicting the behaviour of a group of people, then you need lots of context and throwing some of the most predictive information it is possible to obtain on principle is stupid.
Oh, well. That's me told, then, eh?
I agree and yet I have seen 6tjk Opt-out (and for a moment as it appeared you) argue otherwise. The question was a bit of High Energy Particle Ethics intended to cut through all the hedging and the bullshit to get at what you truly believe.
Then I apologise for the sarcasm. I admit I personally distrust such questions as a debate tool: in my opinion they only make sense from the questioner's viewpoint, so they end up coming across as 'have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no, don't evade the question' even when that is not intended.
What I suspect is actually happening is that people are factoring in reversion to the mean. If a girl's family are all obviously aggressive and mentally-ill, you should think very hard about having children with her even if you've known her long enough to know that she is genuinely darling because genetically the odds are good it won't turn out well.
The same to my mind applies to asylum seekers. Then you're dealing with complex group genetics but you still have to weigh the likelihood that a genuinely great guy might end up replicating the kinds of people and culture that they left to escape.
These are all fair points.
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