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 -
Sadly the link is a 503 error. If it's back up when you see this message, let me know and I'll take another look. But I did do a Google search, and, yeah, it seems similar at least.
I think a big problem with things like this, on a small scale, is that there isn't really a good way to find compatible people. If you're looking for someone to date you can choose from millions of people; if you want to form a baugruppen, assuming you're even aware such a thing exists, you not only have very few people to choose from, you probably have to convince people that the idea even makes sense. If there were exactly one person in the world interested in romance, what's the chance you'd be compatible with them?
So if this were done on a national scale, if we said "yes, we will build a hundred baugruppen in every major city, here is the big online matchmaking system we have built, there are major incentives to be involved with this", then suddenly you're going from Only One Other Person In The World Is Interested In Romance to Online Dating Sites Now Exist. Which makes it a lot easier to find, in the metaphor, a partner, and outside the metaphor, compatible families.
Which is not to say it'd work, but rather, I don't think the spotty success of the times it's been attempted is good evidence that it wouldn't work.
More options
Context Copy link