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 feel about this post the way I feel about articles that say wine or chocolate in moderation has mild health benefits. Maybe there are some people who would benefit from adding a small amount of dark chocolate to their diet and this is valuable information to them, but most people are going to use that information to justify excessive consumption. Maybe there are some people who are so devoted to steel manning that they're missing out on important insights because they accept too many bad-faith weakman objections, but most people need to be pushed to focus on their opponent's best arguments. There are many, many sites on the internet that can be described as a magnifying glass focused on the outgroup's crazies, and most of them produce circle-jerks and dunk contests rather than a burning pyre of illumination. There's no alpha left in trying to detect structural flaws in your opponent's position based on their dumbest arguments.
There might be a tiny tiny bit of alpha in trying to explain the outgroup's collective epistemological dynamics, but "my opponents say they believe this because of x, but they really are motivated by y" is not exactly an untapped field of inquiry online either.
I don't think this is as unlikely as you say. Many political issues are directional in the near term (e.g. should taxes/welfare/prison sentence length go slightly up or down relative to status quo). Many crazies who you disagree with about the optimal tax level are going to end up on your side of the "should taxes go up or down' debate. Your opponents and engagement-driven social media have strong incentives to emphasize the crazies on your side, and you have a strong incentive to downplay their extremity by sane-washing them.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/24/should-you-reverse-any-advice-you-hear/
Qua Scott, there are many pathologically selfish and selfless people in the world. Selfish people need to hear the message that other people's preferences matter and you can't always put yourself first. Selfless people need to hear the message that it is sometimes okay to put yourself first. But group A might hear the message/content intended for group B and use it to justify their destructive behaviour, and vice versa.
I feel this way about a lot of modern "self-care" content, which seems like it was (at least initially) intended to give some measure of succour to genuine victims of child abuse, bullying or similar, but was quickly co-opted by selfish narcissists (invariably claiming to suffer from some nebulously defined "trauma") to rationalize their self-absorption and inconsiderate behaviour. Or indeed a lot of journalistic content about the dangers of excessive exercise, which may be useful advice to the handful of legitimate fitness freaks out there, but likely ends up being consumed by the obese and sedentary as a reason not to go for a walk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link