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 -
How fast can you fail, are we talking locally wrong or globally wrong, and to what extent are As constrained? Though again, this is progressivism/traditionalism/conservatism/whatever Six Foundation thinking is calling itself these days [as A] vs. and classical liberalism [as B].
Which is why most people are, at the intersection of all identities, generally in Group A (as well as the fact that 'right answers for right reasons' are inevitably incorporated by A when discovered by B). You'd have to be some sort of principled libertarian to be in B, which is why B tends to have a lot to do with those who find wrong answers for wrong reasons.
Yet the fact remains that A is completely unsustainable without B- you claim that A "finds" right answers, but generally speaking, they do no such thing. The reverse is not as true, which creates a lot of existential angst for A (and most A memes are designed to shut down and delay realizing that cognitive dissonance, ideally past one human lifetime).
Well, yeah- when A was racist, racism yielded a global maximum of results (or perhaps the predictive power of racism yielding excellent local results lead to the As at the time incorporating it). A rapidly discovered and incorporated the epistemic virtue of racism.
But that's too reductive- it's more accurate to say that racism was a local maximum (which is why As were racist) in a particular time and place. However, once racism stopped being that local maximum, the A at that time was completely destroyed, and a new group A' took over from A.
Naturally, A' claimed they discovered the virtue of not being racist both to siphon power from A, and disavow that the existence of A' owed its existence to grabbing whatever B had for anti-racism and erecting an entire moral edifice around it (as those who choose A have as much a psychological dependence on that morality as those who choose B depend on the idea that the process of correct morality yields positive results). But they're both still A, and once the takeover has concluded, A has 'always been at war with Eastasia', so to speak.
From B's viewpoint, yes- they might be locally (or even globally) correct but they're also horrible people who should never get anywhere near real power, the Puritans being a classic example (note also that "puritanical" is a B meme).
From A's viewpoint, there's no dissonance here, because they don't perceive it to be random- they are good people and deserve good things.
More options
Context Copy link