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 -
Maybe not just a cognitive bias at this point. It's reinforced/encouraged by rights discourse which is a neat frame for any situation where you're not getting something you want. It allows/encourages obscuring the logistics of any service and the fact that the laws of economics and physics don't get suspended for anyone. Which then makes it easy to claim an injustice.
You'd think people don't actually believe-believe that but I do find it weird how many people think declaring something a human right means anything. I suppose it does, it means: it's your job to provide it for me even if it costs you (or the government's job to force you to do so).
You buy into that and someone eventually has to be to blame for why you don't have something you "deserve". The rich are always a good bet.
We do see it where fairness in the most obvious sense isn't expected: a lot of the talk around immigration seems to lean on "rights" of asylum seekers as if it resolves a single logistical issue for anyone. The entire discussion then necessarily becomes who's denying these rights.
I agree. I’ve long been skeptical of “rights” discourse because it approaches human dignity in a very narcissistic and narrow way. What you’re implying when you say you have a right is that you have a claim to something regardless of your connection to the wider society. If I have a right to food, even if I’ve done nothing or even been a net drain on society, then I still get that, I have the right to demand it through channels as provided by society. I could have destroyed the entire ability of the rest of society to eat. I’m much more in line with the idea of reciprocity especially in Confucius. The ruler owes his ministers, but those ministers owe the ruler. The teacher owes the students, but the students owe the teacher. On it goes, of course through all of human relationships.
What I think this does better than modern notions of rights is that it undercuts the narcissistic tendency to see society as a thing that’s supposed to cater to me as an individual. Instead it puts me in a series of relationships that each come with benefits and duties. I get more respect as a senior leader, but as a senior leader, I’m expected to help juniors to achieve and teach them what I know. As a younger sibling I’m expected to obey my older siblings and in return they protect me. And thus I cannot simply wave my fist and demand something— goods, respect, or protection— without being in relationship and providing something to other people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link