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've tried to do this, who are some of the generally "best" people you follow? The eternal issue is that even those that try really hard people still have biases and and sometimes as I'm reading I have to stop "oh, need to double check this one, it involved Israel".
You've kind of nailed the point, actually. I'm not saying all the biases 'cancel out' into the ground truth, but if you're following an account with a seeming Israel bias, and an account lacking one, and the one that lacks that bias is calling out/refuting a post by the biased one, and/or you're seeing that ONLY the Israel-biased account is posting about a given event, you can and should probably disbelieve the Israel-biased account unless they corroborate further.
You want a network that values shutting down falsehoods rapidly rather than propagating them. The holy grail is an account that will proactively correct themselves when they make errors.
The type you want to look for (ime) is a curmudgeonly 'autistic' type with deep subject matter knowledge on a given topic. And you should give them extra credence within that topic, and extra doubt on those topics they seem to have a chip on their shoulder about.
High disagreeability is a somewhat double-edged sword, but necessary to counter popular untruths.
There's a lot of Alpha up front in simply muting accounts you encounter often that spout falsehoods/mislead with regularity.
This place is one of the best spots for getting nuance on the news, and I follow a few, like @morlockp, our own TracingWoodgrains, and @hradzka that are willing to voice disagreement with a community, AND accept criticism of their position.
@St_Rev is a HUGE value add follow, the guy is capable of pointing out a misleading narrative or a missing variable from 1000 yards away
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link