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 -
I should state at the outset that I'm agnostic on this issue and don't particularly care what is ultimately decided. If the NCAA decides to ban all trans athletes I'm okay with that, as it's their prerogative. My main concern was that a standard of mere self-identification would lead to a problem of moral hazard, but the testosterone limits made the cost high enough that I don't see that being an issue. When I refer to conservatives I'm referring to a combination of real people I actually talk to and mainstream conservative outlets. I would never base any categorical statements on what people are saying online. The comments sections of things like Fox News are usually a decent indication of unfiltered sentiment, but hardly something to base broad statements on.
Fairness in sports is entirely relative and is completely related to whatever objectives are trying to be achieved. For instance, some people complain that the new MLB rules favoring baserunners are unfair to pitchers but that misses the point. Yes, they increase stolen bases. But that is the point. Any rule changes to promote offense are inherently unfair to the defense and vice-versa. But there's no abstract "correct" rule system. The entire point of the rules is to create a competitive and entertaining product. So while people complain about unfair ref calls, the complaints are about the calls, not the underlying rules. If I say it wasn't defensive holding I'm saying that because it didn't look like the player was held, not because I think the NFL was wrong to try to limit the impact of Mel Blount in 1978. Here we're just talking about eligibility requirements. Is it fair that the Olympics now not only allows professional athletes but specifically guns for them? Amateurism was supposed to be a key component, but there wasn't too much consternation when they started allowing pros in the '90s. There's still some controversy, but it's more along the lines of whether the NHL should shut down for two weeks to accommodate the Olympics, not whether the games should be for amateurs.
More options
Context Copy link