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 think this is the core of the argument. Arguments are soldiers and all that, breach the argumentative frontline at its weakest point and deliver debilitating strikes to the opponent's rear. Why would you do that if your goal is truth-seeking? The only justifiable argumentation I can think of is: the motte of some idea X is fine, but the bailey its proponents are trying to occupy has dangerous consequences. I can't destroy the motte, but it's strictly good to attack that idea's bailey in the most efficient way until they stop sallying from the motte.
It depends on your ultimate goal and level of opposition. If you actually believe in the motte, you think it is a true position that you yourself share or at least don't object to, but believe is being exploited to defend a harmful bailey, then this is entirely appropriate. If you destroy the bailey and everyone stays in the motte then you are content.
If, however, you fundamentally disagree with the entire position, are attempting to tear down both the motte and bailey, and simply focus on the bailey more often because it's easier, then there's a sort of dishonesty here. The weakman fallacy is when you point out flaws in the bailey and then use those to try to tear down the motte. In this scenario, even in the event that you push people out of the bailey you then switch tactics to fighting the motte afterwards using the victories over the bailey as momentum. In some sense, this is a fulfillment of the slippery slope: as soon as you accomplish X you then keep pushing towards Y. Which is fine if you are honest about it from the beginning, admitting that you disagree with both and are prioritizing the bailey first because it's easier. But is a problem if you pretend that they Bailey is the only problem up until you win that battle and then immediately launch a surprise attack on the motte (and/or attack people who are already motte-only people using bailey arguments).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link