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 -
What exactly is it telling of? If you wish to call it hypocrisy, feel free, but I can wholeheartedly assure you that people will leap to the defense of things they care about/prefer more than those they don't.
I am on record defending particular ideologies/movements I strongly dislike from false accusations.
For a recent example, when another atheist reclaimed religion as innately irrational, I strong disagreed, there's nothing wrong with the concept of religion from the standpoint of rationality, it's the belief in it in the face of the monumental amount of evidence against the supernatural elements seen in believers that makes them irrational. Belief in the supernatural ceases to be irrational when there's net positive evidence of supernatural events.
I see nothing wrong with claiming that religion/Catholicism is as bad/unfounded as trans-ideology and Wokism, or at least comparable in terms of harm, certainly in terms of the basis of their claims where it pertains to empirical reality.
My objection to you is that you didn't submit anything more than post-modernist nonsense about how, since atheism makes metaphysical claims, it's just as unfounded as religion. That is not the stance of anyone who has more convincing examples to show me, and believe me plenty of religious people try to do that, I and many others are atheists because such evidence is utterly inadequate for the magnitude of the claims
People will obviously engage more with topics that they care about than topics they don't care about. But you specifically raised a concern with what you perceived as the form of an argument. We can go back to antiquity to find good reason to think that one should consider the form of an argument apart from its particulars.
Huge ROFL. I've never said that. Just not even. Double ROFL in thinking that it's anything post-modernist. Instead, it's like, core classical philosophy. I've seen some kind of ridiculous misunderstandings/misaccusations about post-modernist philosophy, but this is a new one. Just comically off the mark.
For reference I said:
Quoting you saying:
Hmm.. Did you happen to notice that @Goodguy was claiming that trans ideo was comparably awful to Catholicism, while condemning both? And not being an adherent of either?
And that my gripe with you is that you are presumably a Christian or at least religious, and your sole argument in that specific comment was claiming atheism is just as unfounded as religion, while being religious?
In other words, "both of you suck" versus "you suck just as much as I do". The former is, well, a just a value judgement, whereas the latter is what I expect someone to jump to when they've got nothing else worth saying.
You do you, but I'm leaving, my time to pointlessly quibble here is limited since I have no expectation of an eternal afterlife, or at least one not of our own making, and it's not here yet.
I see. You seem to have just imagined me saying something about my personal beliefs. Moreover, you have some weird post-modernist idea that your perception of my beliefs/identity has some bearing on the validity of the form of my argument. Also, you struggle with "greater than or equal to".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link