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 -
One side of the court is applying legal reasoning to the facts to reach their decision. The other side is picking a winner and tailoring their legal reasoning to reach it. You decide which side is which.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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