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 -
Respecting anyone committing violence is not moral but it is true that actually violence have accelerated the adoption of ideas and ideologies. When it comes to effectiveness it is simply false to pretend that it hasn't been effective.
Well if Ted's ideas were taken very seriously like with marxism, it would have been a fucking disaster. Although the norms of the 19th century were too oppressive for the working class for my taste.
But it is possible that Ted's ideas could lead to some more opposition to technological authoritarianism, or more recognition of society's and technology's trajectory of breaking community bonds.
I wouldn't say that people should be unwilling to die for any ideals. Hell even for opposing a totalitarian technological world goverment. But not to impose the more extreme ideological visions, even opposite ones.
The "don't die for ideals" argument has a certain problem. What if you live in a world were Communists, fascists, Primitivists, Transhumanist totalitarians, cultural marxists, or people who want to force you to decarbonize and restrict your consumption have ideals. Should you to oppose them be willing to fight for your ideals?
I am all for protecting one's people as being important, but it isn't the only thing important. Most ideologies including those promoted as respectable ones come in a package that usually if you stretch it and aren't careful can reach a point where you are fighting to impose something that is horrible and worse than the status quo.
But in that case its a case of people who are fanatical and have worse ideals than the status quo but are just mistaken about their own virtue. The reality is being the biggest fanatics around aint good but if you group aint willing to fight for your ideals others willing to fight for theirs will impose their vision on the world.
Great point. I am not so sure that smart people are that great at managing of not being insane about key important issues.
Still, there isn't an alternative to trying to have reasonable ideals dominate. It would probably help if people aren't too eager to fanatically promote super ambitious and radical visions for the world and die to impose them. But you still need people who have a strong ethos to dominate. This would result in less people like Ted from going to radical paths.
More options
Context Copy link