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 -
I've been waiting for the details to be finalised but we have a new government here in New Zealand, with the required CW controversy.
The first piece is the new government directing departments to prefer english in communications over the pidgin that had formed over the last government. This one is getting less coverage in the international media.
The second big controversy that made it to international media was reversing the previous government's lifetime ban on tobacco for anyone born after 2009. Weirdly, the usual weed legaliser types were in favour of the ban.
Link to full agreement: https://www.national.org.nz/national_act_and_new_zealand_first_to_deliver_for_all_new_zealanders
To be clear, I think there is a principled objective policy debate about legal pot to be had. But, and this but has sir mix a lot singing odes to it, it's window dressing for legal pot- the core pro-pot argument is "it's less bad for you than alcohol because I like potheads and not alcoholics, so it's just not fair that weed is banned" and the core anti-pot argument is "potheads should be forced to get a haircut on national television, the dirty hippies". In other words it's mostly a who/whom argument, and if I had to guess where tobacco users would come down on the who/whom, well...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link