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 -
We've discussed similar concepts in the old place some years back, under the term "distributed motte and bailey". The basic problem is that while it's pretty obviously a thing and quite pernicious, there's pretty much zero way to discuss it productively across the divide. Even if one were to recognize that people on their side were using such a tactic, there's nothing they can do about it other than to maybe abandon their side over an argument of principle... which is not going to happen.
Seeing the larger pattern was one of those things that inclined me toward pessimism about the potential outcomes of the Culture War.
They can 1) admit the other guys are crazy and 2) answer the question "how is my side winning not going to give the crazies influence?" If they can't answer that, especially #2, then yeah there's nothing they can do about it, but sometimes there is nothing you can do about it, and recognizing that is just recognizing the truth.
There's also a difference between "there are crazies on my side" and "the crazies on my side are the ones with influence", especially when the news media sees the former and pretends it's the latter because it doesn't like you.
All valid points. It seems in principle like it ought to be possible to come to some sort of understanding, some productive arrangement.
Remember Gamergate? The Gamergaters in the motte were actively, desperately attempting to sever any connection to the bailey, individually and as groups. The other side simply refused focused on whatever connection could be asserted, and studiously ignored all efforts to the contrary. As you note, if they don't like you, they don't have to play fair.
And this is where the despair sets in. Figuring out what's happening isn't hard, if you pay attention and work at being honest with yourself, which is to say that it's far beyond the ability of most people. But even if you can actually figure out what's happening, you are an individual, and the forces in operation are not individual forces. Someone on the other side, posessed of different values, has approximately zero incentive to recognize your diagnosis of the problem as valid. Reason is too loose, evidence too loose, too many degrees of freedom to pin the situation down into something reliably communicable.
Groups are made up of individuals. Being a morally upright individual is the key here. If you're a model for others, they may choose to follow in your footsteps.
Giving up the individual responsibility of being a good person is why we're in this mess in the first place.
Who creates these systems that set up incentives? Beings from another plane? No, humans do. The point I'm trying to make is that at some level it all comes back to individual responsibility. We need strong, moral people in order to take power and build better systems, if that's what you see as important.
This sort of thing isn't inevitable, and it's frustrating as hell to always see everyone here arguing that it's basically done and dusted. That pessimism is another major reason things are in the shitter.
There's people, and then there's the Things made of the spaces between people: Moloch and other egregores. If your plans involve assuming that the egregores don't exist and people are all you need to plan for, you are going to be very surprised at how things work out.
So no, humans do not have mastery over the incentives. They can in limited circumstances nudge those incentives, sometimes. That's about as good as it gets.
Do you recognize that communal responsibility exists as well?
We do, but if the strong, moral people don't actually take power and build better systems, together, those systems won't happen.
Communal responsibility and egregores absolutely exist, and are important to factor in. However if we want to tackle those problems, then yes we need moral people to band together and build systems together.
Another way to phrase what I'm getting at is that it seems to me we have a lack of capable, moral people, especially young men, who are able to band together and build these systems. Could be a coordination problem, or a supply problem.
Whatever happened to /u/Beej67, anyway? Did the tulpas get him?
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
More options
Context Copy link