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 -
To be clear, my argument is not that small villages are inherently more harmonious; certainly I’m well aware of the staggering levels of interpersonal violence that occurred (and still occurs today) in hunter-gatherer societies. My argument is that if you’re a small, homogeneous village, tradcon Christianity is the optimal ideology to maximize your success, relative to other religions/worldviews.
Well, all those hunter-gatherer societies remained inegalitarian for tens of thousands of years, despite the potential selective gains from 'tradcon christianity'. And Christianity originated and spread initially among the Roman Empire, which was hardly a small, isolated village. Of course, evolution/optimization can just 'miss' good designs just by bad luck or a lack of a way to get from here to there smoothly, so that doesn't prove anything. But it is suggestive!
I also don't think the 'something like christianity is good in villages' is descriptively true - abilities aren't evenly distributed (consider what the effects of severe disease, like parasites, which disables as much as it kills, would do to ability distributions). And 'judging people on descent' is generally valuable, both in the form of "you want a wife with healthy parents and brothers" - but also because the children of people who commit transgressions may have genes that contribute to the same - maybe you don't want to marry your daughter off to the town rapist's son, lest you encourage more rape.
I don't think 'blood feuds' really distinguish Christianity/egalitarianism's applicability to small-scale societies from its applicability to large-scale societies - the decline in killings is, if you value it, as good in a big city as it is in a remote village. And its lack in modern societies, or large cities, is arguably related to our continued adherence to Christian morals/values even without the religion of Christianity, so if the comparison is 'pagan village, blood feuds' vs 'christian village, without blood feuds', vs 'post-christian city, without blood feuds', the Christianity / small village interaction isn't important. Although (hypothetical tangent) blood feuds maybe were adaptive, and maybe if your village is at X scale, dividing into groups that are as big as you can coordinate and having wars at that scale have helped to, medium-term, aggressively select for competence - if X region has lots of small-scale wars while Y region farms peacefully, maybe X region ends up being both slightly smarter and better war-prepared, and develops larger-scale coordination earlier?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link