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 -
Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan:
The amusing thing here to me is that we got two major SCOTUS rulings in two days that are, on the face of it, not directly related to each other in any obvious way (besides the fact that they both deal with the university system). One could conceivably support one ruling and oppose the other. The types of legal arguments used in both cases are certainly different. And yet we all know that the degree of correlation among the two issues is very high. If you support one of the rulings, you're very likely to support the other, and vice versa.
The question for the floor is: why the high degree of correlation? Is there an underlying principle at work here that explains both positions (opposition to AA plus opposition to debt relief) that doesn't just reduce to bare economic or racial interest? The group identity angle is obvious. AA tends to benefit blacks and Hispanics at the expense of whites and Asians. Student debt relief benefits the poorer half of the social ladder at the expense of the richer half of the social ladder. Whites and Asians tend to be richer than blacks and Hispanics. So, given a choice of "do you want a better chance of your kids getting into college, and do you also not want your tax dollars going to people who couldn't pay off their student loans", people would understandably answer "yes" to both - assuming you’re in the appropriate group and that is indeed the bargain that’s being offered to you. But perhaps that's uncharitable. Which is why I'm asking for alternative models.
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.
@The_Nybbler, @Nantafiria, @orangecat, @arjin_ferman, @Primaprimaprima...
Yeah, maybe. This entire subthread seems to be both a reflection of the current state of the Motte and the current state of the world.
I'm not modding anyone in particular here (meaning, no mod notes have gone on anyone's account, despite reports flying right and left), just observing a few things, which you can take for whatever it's worth (likely nothing):
Yes, @The_Nybbler's incessant one-note doomerism "Doesn't matter, nothing changes, rules are all fake and gay and they're gonna keep stomping on my face forever, whatever you post, I'm just gonna say The Left won dooooooooooom!" is tedious and annoying. Even if you think this is true, consider contributing... something else? Anything else?
@Nantafiria - stop with the "no u" bullshit. You may feel understandably backed into a corner, being one of the few outspoken leftists left, but if you believe this place has "gone to the dogs" and engaging with people like adults is no longer worthwhile, then it seems like a healthier response would be to just leave instead of seeing how annoying you can be before you get banned.
@Primaprimaprima - I don't think we have ever followed the rules "to the letter." This is a frequent source of grief from people who want to rules lawyer us ("You must mod every rule exactly as written and you cannot mod anything that isn't breaking a rule exactly as written, and I will write pages and pages arguing about exactly what the rule as written mean...")
So no, you don't have to argue everything from first principles every time, but you also can't start with ground-level assumptions like "As we all know, wokes suck."
This thread, generally, is bad because no one is actually arguing anything, you're just exchanging dunks and rimshots back and forth.
"Your side bad!"
"No yours."
And if that's all you have left, well, why are you even here?
My two cents. The official mod statement here is: knock it off and write gooder, all of you.
That's not why I'm here, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on, too? The fuck?
And yet you post this? How am I supposed to respond to this? Do you expect anything other than a ban? Is this supposed to be some sort of very clever gambit to see if I will ban you so you can then complain about being banned even though you claim not be trying to get banned?
All I can say is: "As you wish." Banned for a week.
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