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 used to get criticized and attacked all the time by people, who claimed I was always trying to 'win' some argument in the conversation being had. And I usually was only met with that reply, for attempting to keep things on course and refusing to let the topic just irrationally jump from one unrelated point to another. I was never as concerned with 'truth-seeking' so much as I was determined to establish 'some' kind conclusion within the topic being had. Conversations that are had recreationally with no ended aim in mind, annoy the hell out of me in the vast majority of cases. But I think people are getting 'far' too much mileage out of terms like 'strawmanning' or 'steelmanning' or 'weakmanning'.
I think there are few basic distinctions that on some level, are common to all terms used to capture this concept. Most people aren't very adept at 'precisely' articulating their arguments. People epistemologically always know 'more' than they're capable of expressing through language. For most of them, they can only approximate, at 'best' what it is they're 'trying' to say. And that's where all the haggling over the various -manning, takes place; IMO. There's what people are 'trying' to say, and then there's what they're 'actually' saying. I don't think any of those terms apply entirely, across the board as a general rule. You have to ask yourself what the purpose of your argument is.
More options
Context Copy link