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 -
Can you date folks with different politics?
I watch this stream yesterday and i find it quite interesting. Im actually kinda in this situation now, i took a girl on a date, she made it obvious she was a progressive. I often dont share my own views on these things in real life, due to how toxic these conversations can be, so i just try to listen and empathize with where the person is coming from. Though im planning to open my mouth a little more about things on the 2nd go round, as to not give a misleading representation of who i am.
Whats interesting is that the streamer in question distinct "politics" from "human rights", she gives a pretty weak example with Roe V Wade. However i think the distinction between "politics" and "human rights" is shaky to begin with. No one really agrees on what human rights even are, per her roe example, gun control (constitutional arguably, but still) being another one, & there are still societies/people that arent accepting of LGBT although thats been on the decline over some decades. My guess is she is taking this to mean, "you probably shouldnt date a nazi", which is perfectly fine. But there arent a lot of those guys around in this day and age. For myself, i dont really believe any idea is above criticism, so i dont see how having a different idea of what constitutes human rights is much different from just having different politics.
According to pew research, most people, (myself included) are fine with dating people across the political aisle {note that many people wouldnt date a trump voter, but many would date a republican, but i suspect many people might view trump as a fundamentally immoral individual, and thus that makes him distinct from just mere disagreement}. I also find that peoples political beliefs arent good measures of how moral they are in real life. There are many progressives ive seen who were cheaters, liars, lazy, ect & conservatives who were kind hearted, hard working, & loving ect (& vice versa). But i want to know what you guys think.
I am here. I could date someone with almost any political beliefs, but a Trump fanatic (which is how some people probably read voter) is right out. If my date actually thought Trump was playing 4d chess and had some great plan all along, rather than being an unhinged celebrity out of his depth who got some things right and some things wrong seemingly by random chance.
Which points to my view on the matter: dating across politics is ok, but you have to use similar systems and sources of knowledge to find your political beliefs. People who just kind of inherited their political views from their parents can date people who inherited the opposite political views from their parents, because they'll both view it as "well, this is life, this is who we are, I can't expect you to change your 'tribe' for me." People who get all their politics from mainstream media can date someone who gets different politics from the same newspapers; but someone who gets their politics from the NYT Sunday Opinion section will have trouble dating someone who gets their politics from banned subreddits, whether it's a Ross Douthat vs ChapoTrapHouse relationship or a Molly Ivins vs /r/theMotte relationship.
Personally, I can date or befriend anyone with any politics, if they get it from similar knowledge sources. I could date a Marxist who read Marx and Zinn, I couldn't date a "Marxist" who gets their marching orders from Twitter. I could date an Objectivist who wants to cite Hayek, I couldn't date a Libertarian whose only "texts" are greentext. I could date a Christian who reads the bible and wants to talk theology, I couldn't date a Christian who obeys his pastor.
Maybe there's some kind of meta-political belief underlying that, like obedience vs intellectual independence.
You describe obedience in both cases; the only difference you mention is the target of that obedience. Why is deference to Marx any less submissive than deference to Twitter? At least Twitter occasionally has good ideas.
No, 5HM is describing a categorical difference in the relationship. The premise is that group 1 engages with the target on a more “intellectual” level than group 2 is doing. This is useful as a proxy for shared values separate from the actual values of the ideology.
Compare vanilla Protestants vs charismatic Christian sects. An obedient believer from one isn’t necessarily going to feel comfortable with the other. The institutions signal different values.
It sounds like they believe that nobody could intellectually engage with trump to conclude he was playing 4d chess all along. Or; that nobody could intellectually engage with twitter and conclude that mobs are right and useful. Use of the phrase "marching orders" hints at this.
Mino (if I may speak for him) and I both agree that this is just a farcical comparison of apples and oranges. A person who executes tribal signals is not a person that is said to be having beliefs.
Really, 5HM is listing out annoying tribal behaviors while the topic under discussion is "irreconcilable political beliefs."
Yes.
Though maybe I need to specify: when I refer to "Trump 4d Chess" I don't mean a mild, motte-ish version that Trump is capable of more complex and high risk political play-calling than we normally see because he's politically unmoored to the establishment traditions that preclude them. I'm referring to people I know who told me, specifically and seriously, that Trump passed power to the military before Biden's inauguration, and that he would resume power in cooperation with the MyPillow guy some time in August 2021. Then October 2021. Etc. That's not something you get out of a reasoned analysis of available evidence. Ditto various twitterati positions, though I can't picture someone who cares deeply about a lot of those things liking me anyway so it's sort of a wash.
More options
Context Copy link
Change it to
And I think we, and probably @FiveHourMarathon, would agree.
Neither the clout-chasing Marxbro or the chad Engels enthusiast are necessarily expressing intellectual rigor. Same for the 5D chess—the grid of (is/isn’t chessmaster) vs. (tribal/rational reasoning) has two more quadrants. But there is a correlation between the two axes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the sects send different signals, but the matter isn't obedient vs independent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Dead gods have a big advantage over living gods: their words are etched in stone and they can't come up with a bright new idea to cause a ruckus. That's why invisible, silent divinities are preferred over god-kings.
Even the Devil can quote scripture. A dead god is a mouthpiece for whoever cares to speak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did I describe obedience to Marx? I described reading Marx and Zinn, with the obvious implication of reading others as well and interpreting them for yourself. I get along with people who read widely and form their own opinions, not with doctrinaire dogmatics.
What is the difference here between "taking marching orders" and "absorbing things they read and forming opinions"? Why is it different to be inspired by Marx than by LibsOfTikTok?
I'm describing people I'd want to date, as opposed to people I wouldn't want to date. People who read Marx are going to get along with me better. If you truly can't see the qualitative differences between LibsOfTikTok's "intellectual product" and The Eighteenth Brumaire because Communism Doesn't Work, then I don't know what to tell you. Guess we'll never date. Alas, you'll miss out on staring into my piercing blue eyes and feeling my pillowy soft lips on yours. But it just wouldn't work, I love high quality historically important philosophical work whether I agree with it or not.
I guess the difference I'm going for is somewhat analytical? If you're reading big thinkers and understand the nuts and bolts of your philosophy, it's qualitatively different from someone who reads "thinkpieces" and parrots talking points. I'm happy to talk Biblical or Quranic theology with anyone, I'm uninterested in hearing about what anyone saw on the 700 club.
Firstly, let me say that my preferences match yours: I don't care about object-level signals in partners. I care about meta-level engagement styles. If someone asked me why, I would just say I noticed a correlation between the kinds of people I enjoy, and the engagements they have.
Am I making a category error by calling that my reason? Maybe that's just my strategy to satisfy my goals?
Would you accept that as your reason? Does there need to be some grand, real underlying factor?
More options
Context Copy link
What I'm suggesting is that the difference between "carefully absorbs knowledge to synthesize into new and personal understandings" and "recklessly takes in nonsense from unreliable internet sources to parrot" is largely the difference between whether you respect the person and their viewpoint or not, and not any sort of intellectual rigor. Some of the dumbest social media hot takes are from academic wordcels who live and breathe their ideologies and by all rights are reasonably high IQ.
I get you on the analytical bit, I appreciate good conversation and coherent thoughts when having serious talks. But alas, you're right: we can never be. I'm pretty aggressively anti-philosophy.
Just philosophy and seven inches of anatomy stand between our love.
Twitter doesn't make for a good look for most academics, though there are exceptions. But over lunch, I get along with most academics I've run into. Longform vs Shortform.
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