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 -
What good is overgrazing if it destroys the commons?
Well, if overgrazing secures you benefits, and the commons are going to be gone very soon regardless, then the choice is between securing some benefits by overgrazing, or securing little to no meaningful benefit as the commons disperse too many ways to be of value. This presumes the commons can't be meaningfully preserved, and that overgrazing is net-benefit at least for you personally, but neither seem unreasonable assumptions in a variety of real-world scenarios.
Getting back to the discussion over the weekend, your use of "civil society" is shorthand for a whole lot of points that can't, in fact, reasonably be assumed. The day before the Rwandan genocide, did Rwanda have "civil society"? The month before? The year before? Unless we're assuming spontaneous mass possession by demons, there has to be some sort of runup to the fabric of society abruptly failing, right? What does that runup look like?
The intra-party maneuvering is vital, in the same way a rudder is vital. It's the small things that determine where a much larger thing is going to go, and where the thing is going to go is the whole of the question. Without that, there's nothing of value in the exercise at all.
If you have a principled view that government enforcement of ideology against or through business interests is a bad idea, I invite you to climb into your time machine and deliver an impassioned plea to some point at least twenty years ago, probably more like fifty. It is far, far, far too late now.
More options
Context Copy link