site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a nice theory, but I can't forget living in a country where significant part of the population were in the army - and not in a parade peacetime army, but the army actively engaged in fighting, and still somehow they do not look or act like a bunch of psychos. In fact, the only event that I could describe as "psycho-driven mass shooting" (as opposed to terrorism or combat engagement) that I could remember happened in 1994. Compare to how often these happen in the US, where the proportion of people who seen combat training, let alone real combat, is much lower. According to your theory, mass shootings or murders by veterans should happen very often, and the more people pass combat training, the more they should be perpetrating such events. But this is not what is happening, by which I can conclude your theory is flawed.

But you're not hearing me if you think that is what matters.

It should matter.

According to your theory, mass shootings or murders by veterans should happen very often

I don't see why. Rather the theory would predict that all else being equal vets are more violent and more deadly in their violent encounters than the average. Terrorism being well within consideration here.

Frankly I have no idea of the numbers on that so that's a falsifiable claim right there.

Again you seem to have this weird idea of the only alternative to rational consideration being some fictitious conception of psychopathy. It's just not that simple.