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 -
With the caveat that I do not follow Aella directly and am getting the gist third-hand, in the course of organizing prostitution-based social activities, she had prospective attendees fill out one of her sexuality questionnaires, with one of the questions being whether the attendees would prefer intimate relations with a live cow or a dead one.
Lol, I guess it really would be that simple. It sounds so autistic "it is an interesting hypothetical question" without even considering people would find it inappropriate.
Straining to find a good reason for that: it works to filter out normies. If you balk at that, then that's your clue you are in the wrong place.
--George Orwell, 1984
I would guess that the cow question is trying to filter against that.
I disagree. Crimestop is designed to prevent a rational consideration of undesirable matter - because considering it may lead a person to conclusions or thought patterns that are disapproved by the Party. However, the cow question, if pondered seriously, would most likely lead people to become disgusted and more entrenched in the value of their current culture - "we normies have our faults, but at least obsessing with questions like that isn't one of them". It's not a slippery slope, rather it's the opposite of it - the more you try to go there, the more all of your instincts scream at you to turn back. Except, of course, for the rare few that are really into it. Crimestop is not designed to guard against a rare few freaks - it is designed to control the masses. This question is designed to filter for certain kind of freaks.
But you contradict yourself:
The question is designed to get those kinds of people- the ones that have disgust-forward personalities and conventional morality (we're talking Kohlberg 3/4s)- to throw out the survey.
Crimestop by contraposition, if you will; this works because Kohlberg 3/4s see the behavior of 5/6s as indistinguishable from 1/2 and, by observing that they are quite literally morally superior, are emotionally protected from the cognitive dissonance that someone actually better would feel if they let their moral indignation get in the way of being able to answer the question.
See also: bell_curve_iq_meme.jpg (positions are 'answers question', 'noooo u can't that's disgusting and sacrilegious', 'answers question').
You propose that the high IQ bracket is characterized by being unable to refuse answering the question?
Not unable; perhaps as a refinement, 'recognizes and answers the meta-question'.
Why would highly morally developed people be unwilling to refuse that?
The way I see it, "would you answer a disgust-bait question to prove high decoupler credentials" is a valid read on the meta-question and a perfectly coherent high-decoupler (but not high decoupler signaling) answer is "no" or even "no, fuck off".
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