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 -
Mostly the posts are about the censorship aspect of the story, which is naturally going to attract comments by people who oppose censorship on principle and/or have specific examples they object to. Even people who support censorship tend not to be as passionate about censoring COVID-19 stuff as they are about something like "hate speech", so it's not going to get a bunch of comments about not "tolerating the intolerant" or whatever.
In any case your post comes across as obnoxious bulverism, seemingly taking for granted that disagreement with your position is driven by irrational fear or "Mass Formation Psychosis". You don't even really explain what your position is (No lockdowns whatsoever? Lesser lockdowns? Lockdowns until 3 weeks after vaccines were available to all and not a day longer? Lockdowns implemented voluntarily by non-governmental organizations but not any by the government? Government campaigns against social distancing so it doesn't drag on due to voluntary behavior? Better-targeted lockdowns that don't do useless things like restrict borders after it is already spreading domestically?) let alone explain why you have that position. Are there views you don't agree with but also think are a normal mistake rather than psychosis? Is this about specific views or are you postulating a bias towards pro-lockdown views without necessarily asserting they are actually incorrect? Your post doesn't make any of this clear, it doesn't have much content at all, it just points to a thread with people expressing views closer to your own and postulates that this shows people are getting over the madness that made them disagree with you.
Why do they have to have a separate position and explain it? If there was a political trend advocating for hitting the Earth with an asteroid, would you demand that critics of asteroid billiards provide an alternative policy beyond just not doing that? Sometimes, simply saying "don't do that" needs no further elaboration. See also, politician's syllogism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link