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 -
The media coverage of the affirmative action ruling has really highlighted in a unique way the degree to which journalists fundamentally are not representative of the US. Despite only a third of Americans approving of the use of race in admissions, the media overwhelmingly cover this like it's a moral wrong. I buy that most credible news outlets do try and be objective, but trying to be objective isn't enough. Bias isn't just a conscious thing. If you perceive something to be objectively wrong, you're going to cover it as such. But the trouble is what is often considered to be objectively wrong, at least at this point, is largely a function of your viewpoint, in this case meaning political orientation. The problem is fundamentally that there is no plurality of thought at credible news organizations. They are all perceiving things through the same intellectual framework.
The same thing is largely evident in the coverage of republican states restricting the use of gender affirming care in youth. The credible scholarship overwhelmingly appears to demonstrate that the impacts of allowing it are either adverse or there simply isn't enough research to be sure that it's a good thing. But the media overwhelmingly characterize it as a moral wrong and as basically being rights that are stripped from an oppressed group.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/
I don't think you're wrong that the media is more favorable to affirmative action than the public but this post is a low effort restatement of what I suspect is a widely held opinion here and so doesn't add much value If you found a non-opinion article from a mainstream news source covering the opinion and demonstrated how the subconscious bias influenced their writing that would be a lot more interesting.
If you broadly read the news you know what I mean and I don’t need to cite it. If you broadly read the news and don’t agree, you likely share the bias in referencing and that evidence citing would turn into a game of whack a mole where I’d find an article and you’d counter on semantic grounds or whether it is an outliner or the norm. Short of providing some sort of statistical evidence that somehow characterizes media reporting on this, you can find a reason to disagree.
If this is not evident to someone im inclined to believe it’s because of the same phenomenon im talking about: you share the bias im talking about so you don’t see it as bias. Or you don’t read the news much.
This sort of thing can easily turn into a endless debate of first principles, and those debates can easily turn into a black hole where every bit of evidence and every assumption is contested and you can just reject anything you don’t like on abstract grounds, and at some point just i have to be able to say if you reject this idea that’s fair but this post isn’t for you. Demonstrating the observation is important, but this comment isn't for those who need the observation illustrated for them: It’s for those who have observed what I’m talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
So in other words:
'You're not wrong, but I don't like you point.'
Do you think your statement adds any value?
I think I disagree with most of the people here but they usually put a fair amount of effort into top level posts and I learn things by engaging with them. I think this falls short of the implicit standards, if not the official ones, for a top level post here because it asserts a bunch of non-novel opinions and doesn't really cite sources or provide examples. I think setting standards and expressing constructive criticism (I suggested how they could improve the post) is a small value add.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it added value. I agree that breaking down a source is almost always more interesting than pure theoryposting. Especially when that theory is all over the surrounding threads.
Similar sentiment to “how could you be so controversial, yet so brave?” But a little more tactful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link