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 -
Do you ever get tired of posting one-liners that are all heat and no light? No charity, no forethought, nothing but war to the knife.
I mean, are they wrong?
There point seems pretty obvious and we've recently seen a lot of talk about activist judges, etc.
Perhaps you don't like uncomfortable things being pointed out?
Whether they are wrong or not, it's clearly low quality as it doesn't contain any argument or evidence. It also violates the rules for boo outgroup and speaking plainly.
More options
Context Copy link
Nah. Believe what you will, this place has gone to the dogs enough as-is.
I'm sorry to report: it's not this place, it's the world.
We had a conversation about steelmanning here recently, and our resident Russian pointed out profoundly "I can steelman Russian nationalism, but I cannot redeem it". Aside from the fact that the kind of people who lament the lack of charity here never seem to lament the lack of charity towards ideas that are unpopular in the mainstream, I have to ask: is the point to show charity to the point we have to invent things that don't exist in the world we actually inhabit?
You don't have to invent things whole cloth, but starting with a position that isn't maximally inflammatory and unkind is a good start as well as sorely lacking.
How much of the same pattern do we have to see repeated over and over, before we can say that it is, in fact, a pattern?
From the OP:
Figure something a pattern all you want, there are people who disagree with you. Calling them names is against the letter and spirit of this thread.
As you can tell, we've evolved away from the original rules over the years. Following them to the letter doesn't make much sense anymore (but I suppose the mods will disagree).
When this place first got started there were two major factors that were different from what they are now. 1) is that the culture war itself (in its modern form) was still relatively new and the battle lines were still being drawn, positions were still being crafted. 2) is that there were a lot more leftists and the idea was to facilitate a left-right dialogue. There was a stronger sense that every post should start "from zero" essentially: every claim should be justified from the ground up as though you were exploring virgin territory. (That's how I remember it anyway)
As time has gone on and the culture war has gotten more entrenched I don't think it makes sense to start every discussion "from zero" anymore. People are familiar with all the arguments now. If you think someone hasn't sufficiently supported their position then you can ask them to elaborate, but I don't think it makes sense to tut tut people over not following the black letter rules. Taking certain things for granted doesn't equate to hostility.
Again that's just my personal take, and I imagine it's not shared by everyone.
I was there, Gandalf. I was there when the SlateStarCodex blog was around. I was there when the subreddit was new. I'm here now-
But, as many others jotted down in a certain Wednesday thread not so long ago, I'm not sure that I should be. Not like this, no. And if it continues to fly, that's plenty confirmation right there, I suppose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think so, yeah. When I read the Biden v Nebraska decision, I actually don't think either side is completely full of shit, just picking the winner and then figuring out how to get there. The side that I agree with actually seems like they have thinner legal reasoning, to me. The affirmative action case seems entirely straightforward and I think the dissent is absolute garbage, but the difference between the two cases might just be that I think Kagan is a lucid, clear, humorous writer while Sotomayor and (especially) KBJ are absolute hacks.
Sotomayor and KBJ make the best argument for the court to strike down affirmative action.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If there is blatant culture warring in this thread that isn't being modded, that's a mod problem.
Everyone's problem, I'd say.
I agree that everyone is negatively impacted by it. The only viable solution is a change in mod behavior. So long as people are allowed to take passing potshots at their outgroup they will continue to do so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a biased take sure, but most political takes are... There's a point and it not overly insulting.
Is this really the level for a 'boo outgroup' ban?
More options
Context Copy link
It may be charitable to attempt to find a "reasonable" explanation for tribal behavior, but it won't get you closer to the truth. The point I was making, sardonically, is that it looks like tribal behavior because it IS tribal behavior.
I didn't interpret your comment as sarcastic, considering that @Jiro, @guajalote, and @jeroboam all made the exact same point. It would be weird if you were all being sarcastic. Clearly this is a framing that some people actually believe in.
Yes, obviously some people believe their side is following the legal reasoning to reach a conclusion and the other side is picking a winner. I think in this case that's wrong, but not as wrong as believing that both sides are following the legal reasoning to reach a conclusion. I think in these cases both sides picked the outcome first. I happen to think the legal reasoning is better on the conservative side in these cases, but I don't believe the justices weren't results motivated. Probably the weakest bit of reasoning in the recent "tribal" decisions is not in an education decision but in the gay wedding site case, not in the main holding (which is ironclad, IMO) but the granting of standing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link