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 -
For better or worse, I don't think we have any easy answers to this. But one major factor I think is as close to a red flag or bright line as anything can be in this context is whether or not the activists are open to some sort of the scientific method being applied to their claims and methods. Activists are sometimes helpful and sometimes not, and we need a way to actually figure that out on a case-by-case basis, and the only way to do that is if their specific claims can be analyzed by both oppositional and disinterested parties. If the activists have a pattern of pushing back against scrutiny and skepticism instead of embracing them as ways to make their own activism better and more helpful, then they're trying to cheat - both others and themselves - and ought to be kicked out of the game.
There's a balance that needs to be struck, because no one can spend all their time addressing every counterargument or demand for access someone might throw at them, and it's reasonable to demand limits to such things. But I think it's often not too hard to figure out the underlying attitude from general patterns of what are rejected and what reasons are invoked and the like. There will always be a subjective component to this, but I'm not sure we can get brighter lines or redder flags than that.
More options
Context Copy link