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 -
Throughout the 20th century, they also managed to stay nominally neutral and peaceful in most major conflicts (while, perhaps not entirely deservedly, staying clear of the Swiss smell of profiteering off others' misery too), and gained a certain reputation for individual activism for the greater good (Fridtjof Nansen etc.).
Is there even anyone who would be a more credible arbiter?
That's a very interesting question. The issue I see is that as with most Western European countries, the Norwegian Nobel committee is perceived as having been captured by the Left. (Thus the Peace Prize award to Obama.)
In my view, what would be more credible is a bipartisan committee comprised of (1) two individuals appointed by the state legislature in Oklahoma; (2) two individuals appointed by the state legislature of New Jersey; and (3) a 5th member chosen by agreement among the first 4.
That might make for a reasonable starting point for a peace prize that will be considered "fair and balanced" by Americans, but the rest of the world would care about it as much as it does about this year's Superbowl winner. Hardly anyone out here could even point out Oklahoma on a map.
The circumstance that American political theatre is a hyperstimulus would also further sabotage any attempts at global appeal: much like Europeans are more captured by anti-Red propaganda and Russians are more captured by anti-Blue propaganda than most Americans, the shit-slinging that would inevitably ensue to try and influence the choice within the inside baseball league alone would leak out, and make outsiders walk away very confident that the selection process is hopelessly biased in whatever direction.
I would guess most people (1) are unaware that with with respect to the Peace Prize, it's Norway and not Sweden who decides; and (2) would be unable to point to a map of Europe and pick out Norway and Sweden. In my opinion, the main reason people care about the Nobel Prize is because other people care. Because other people care. And so on. A kind of first-mover / network effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link