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 -
Eurasians, not Europeans. His book is about Eurasian geographical advantages. I don’t know that any of the major species were domesticated in Europe proper.
Re boars, wild horses, etc, I have no idea how docile they are. I am guessing Diamond knows more than either of, though of course that doesn't mean he is right. But the issue is not whether he was right; the issue we are discussing is whether the book should be summarily dismissed.
I am no expert on wild boars, especially not the boars that lived in the Near East, but I note that you say that they are vicious "when cornered." It is certainly possible that zebras are vicious on general principles. Moreover, this says that 80 percent of wild boar attacks are by males; is it not possible that the females are not so dangerous? One doesn't need many males when raising livestock for food, after all. And is it not possible that zebras of both sexes are assholes? Or, even if just the males are assholes, if they are being raised as beasts of burden, you probably want males, which I presume are bigger and stronger than females.
Anyhow, my point is I am skeptical that one can discount his argument based merely on what you have heard about wild boars, unless you know a lot more than I do about both zebras and wild boars.
Why obviously implausible? It wouldn't be a very good just-so story if it were obviously implausible. Isn't logical plausibility the whole point of just-so stories? And, surely, there are reasons that some animals were domesticated and others were not. Why is it "obviously implausible" that disposition, as well as the other factors identified by Diamond (there is a reason the chapter is called "Zebras, Unhappy Marriages & The Anna Karenina Principle"), were important factors?
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think any book can be summarily dismissed? If not, would it not be more useful to argue the general case? If so, what's a reasonable standard in your view?
Anything written by Ibram Kendi
Common ground!
Well, I meant to add, "and Dinesh D'Souza," at least within the last 20 years.
And, more seriously, any book in which it is clear that the author has not read any of the existing relevant literature. Eg, this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The details of whether a particular species was domesticable or not is something you can have a conversation about, the broader theory absolutely should be dismissed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link