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 -
Between this post and this one, you seem to be getting overly belligerent and personal.
The fact that you write eloquently, verbosely, and opaquely now seems to be something you're trying to take advantage of (namely, by throwing as many personal digs into your rebuttals as you can). Stop it.
Is this just a cutesy way to imply that my post is a loquacious personal attack without merit?
Verbose I'll give you, but nothing is opaque in my writing on the subject. On the other hand, this guy is being opaque, circumspect and passive-aggressive with his doctrine of moral aliens, and so I plainly accuse him of being disingenuous and manipulative.
It is fair to point out both the general absurdity of framing nativism as an «alien moral intuition» and the specific issue that his background ought to have contained plenty exposure to nativism as a mainstream policy preference; his rhetoric about it amounts to gaslighting. It is even fairer to keep hammering at the fact that he gradually adapts the framing to make it more palatable, but never responds to this line of critique and falls back on the administrative resource. Between this and his previously expressed tribal antagonism towards Western right wingers couched in opaque lesswrong-style jargon, I think it's perfectly clear where I'm coming from and what I'm saying.
You personally do not give @SecureSignals much leeway with equivocations about trips of DeSantis and minutiae of Holocaust. Why do I have to tolerate this clever talk to the effect that we should all get along, by means of both sides dehumanizing people who don't share his (allegedly universal) values?
Ironically, I'm irritated on behalf of both white nativists and other South Asians, chiefly @BurdensomeCount, whom you sometimes whack for the same gloating attitude of a successful immigrant elite – only revealed in more honest, direct and masculine language. And to think he's accused of being coy!
I am aware you're moderating for tone, not content. But several rules allow to interpret his kind of cleverness as violation, and it makes at least as much sense as what you levy against me here.
I'm not judging how much merit there was to it. But it was a loquacious personal attack.
No, but I don't think I've ever modded him for it, and I definitely don't unload with my unfiltered sentiments about what I think of him personally, even cloaked in eloquent, loquacious verbosity.
Yes, you could interpret anything anyone else says that you don't like as a violation of the rules. Many people try to do this, especially when they get modded themselves. But I don't do that.
Making arguments you don't like, even arguments you personally (and maybe even justifiably) feel are crappy and bad, is not against the rules.
Making arguments personal, and more about what you think of the poster than the post, is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link