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 -
There needs to be a taxonomical distinction between political views and what I have recently decided to call "normative views". Political views relate to government policy, and normative views relate to the way we use language and the way we treat each other, i.e. social norms. Whether we define racism as racial discrimination or "prejudice plus power" is a normative issue, as is whether it's ever okay to misgender someone. These issues are only political insofar as they can be affected at the ballot box, and they generally cannot. (Public schools teaching CRT is an example that you can go after at the ballot box.)
"Values" is a general descriptor for one's sense of justice, of right and wrong, of good and evil, for what ought to be.
By interpreting received data in light of one's values, one forms a "Worldview", a simplified picture of what things are and how they work, a big picture that, while necessarily simplistic, captures the basic essence of reality as one understands it.
Compatible worldviews cooperate iteratively, building trust and cementing "Social Norms" that smooth further interaction.
With a baseline of trust in mutual cooperation and the durability of social norms, one can move on to the search for fine-tuned solutions to specific problems, which is the business of Politics.
Does this help?
I agree with all of this, but I think you can agree two things are linked while still having separate words for them, thereby acknowledging that they are two different things.
I would argue that all of these are different things, and nonetheless are linked; in fact each is entirely dependent on the level below it. This was one of the big revelations for me, back in the early days of the present unpleasantness: that politics was downstream from social norms, which were in turn downstream from worldview and hence values. Prior to that, the narrative I'd received was that politics had nothing to do with questions of value and worldview, because politics was about facts and figures, not unfalsifiable metaphysics. In their defense, a lot of those metaphysics had stood immovable for so long that it was easy to think them part of the landscape, unchangeable as the hills, so it was a great surprise when they began skipping like lambs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link