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 -
What reason would I have to explain that? I have explicitly stated my position upthread that rural voters are not the only "numerical minority" that must be protected from mob rule. Let's have a look at just one recent example:
Where I said "I should probably leave it at that" in my previous post, I first deleted a paragraph where I laid out an argument that you are either being disingenuous, or have a serious reading comprehension issue. Then I thought--no, that's too much heat, not enough light, I'm just going to drop it.
With this comment, though, I just don't see any totally non-antagonistic way to describe your persistent and repeated mischaracterization of my view. I get that the thread is unwieldy, and you and I are both getting a lot of comments from a variety of people. So I want to be charitable about this, but like--if you're going to whine that I've "failed to explain" some position, you should probably be pretty confident that it's my actual position, and not a position I have repeatedly stated that I do not hold, right here in this thread! But no--here you are, arguing against some imaginary version of me you've concocted in your head.
Speaking of which--
If there were any plausible way to take that bet, I'd certainly do so--not least because I'd be shocked if you could personally identify the class of "people I disagree with" to even 50% accuracy. Conversely, I would not deign to comment on how often you stand up for the rights of people you disagree with, because I don't know you, and it would be idiotic to think that just because someone is (say) colossally disingenuous and reliably partisan in an online forum, that must be their whole personality.
Furthermore, probably most of us are bad at tracking good deeds, unless they are really substantial. My honest inclination is to say "I've never seen you actually demonstrate real care about civil liberties in ways that might undermine your apparent politics," but the truth is, if I had seen you do that, I probably wouldn't remember. There are too many users here for me to reliably remember each one's quirks and hangups, so I try to just approach every discussion with fresh eyes. Still, for whatever it's worth: you've never given me the impression that you are the tiniest bit interested in defending civil liberties in any broadly principled way.
But you subsequently backed off that claim. Anyhow, as we both said, it is pointless to continue discussing this point.
Yes, true, and I don't know you. But I know me, and as it happens I get paid to stand up for the rights of people I disagree with. My claim was not meant to be an attack on you, specifically, but rather a defense of me, against your claim that somehow I support mob rule. As well as an extension of my observation that very, very few people in general, and certainly very few people here, are principled civil libertarians.
True
Then you need to read more carefully. Because I have repeatedly criticized cancel culture on here. And have repeatedly argued that social media companies should be held to the same standard as govt re viewpoint and subject matter censorship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link