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 -
Contra Innuendo Studios On "Didoing"
Today, another video from Innuendo Studios in their "Alt-Right Playbook" series just dropped, and it describes a move in an argument where Person A will propose a small gesture that they assert will make things better for some group, and Person B counters by essentially agreeing that society is unfair around the issue being discussed, but that it is such a minor problem that it is not worth addressing. Innuendo Studios' preferred word for this move by Person B is "Didoing" (after the Dido song Thank You which features the lyrics "[...] it's not so bad"), but he also points out that some people have called this issue "The Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness", which I prefer as a name for this, since it doesn't rely on knowledge of a song from 1998 to explain.
According to Innuendo Studios, Person B's hidden premise is that "it is okay for things to be unfair, within a certain tolerance." That "some people do and should take extra precautions just to exist in the world alongside the rest of us."
My own politics lean towards social democracy, and aside from some anti-woke skepticism, I am far from "alt-right." But to the above I have to say, isn't Person B obviously correct?
Innuendo Studios initially frames the discussion around content warnings, so let's start there. I want to set aside, for a moment, the question of whether content warnings are actually successful at addressing some alleged unfairness in society. Let's grant for the sake of argument that they are 100% successful at addressing the issue of people with PTSD or anxiety attacks having their conditions activated as a result of media they are consuming.
That still doesn't answer at what level society should be trying to deal with this issue. As I see it, there are four basic levels a coordination problem can be solved in society:
Now I believe the question becomes, assuming that content warnings work, at what level should we try to solve the problem that they solve?
None of these options are without downsides. If we create a new government bureaucracy to do this, how do we stop it from trying to seize new power or misusing the power it was given? If we enshrine a new social norm, are we prepared to accept the ostracism of people from polite society for its violation? If a private organization tries to solve the problem, how can its limited reach be solved so the maximum number of people possible enjoy the benefits of the solution? And doubly so for individual actions.
We already live in a world where there are a ton of voluntary systems for content ratings, from the MPA film rating system to the United States pay television content advisory system to the ESRB. All of these systems are being done by private industry, and don't have the force of law.
We also have successful examples of crowd-sourcing trigger warnings with sites like Does The Dog Die.
I don't think it would be unreasonable for a person to think that this level of dealing with the problem is more or less acceptable. We haven't delivered a perfect solution to all people, but we've achieved reasonably good coverage at a tolerably low cost to society in terms of money and resources invested. Sure, some people might find this incomplete resolution unsatisfying, or on the other side believe that even the level we're currently investing in it is too high.
All discussions are going to end up like this in the end, whether we're talking about whether the government should have programs to pay for eye glasses for people, or whether we're talking about whether we should force private companies to build handicapped spaces in parking lots.
If we have a list of societal interventions we're considering implementing, I think it is obvious that you should do the ones that have the highest impact with the lowest cost of societal resources to implement. It doesn't mean that the problems that you don't focus on aren't problems, but they might be small enough problems that you don't actually need any larger coordination to solve the problem.
I think it would be worth prioritizing relatively cheap interventions like eyeglasses, which can have huge positive impacts on people depending on the level of impairment they started with, over more untractable problems that tend to be the focus of woke bellyaching.
No matter how you try to solve a problem in society, there will always be trade offs. You're always compromising between bigger interventions in Area A and Area B since every resource that matters is finite, and I think most people find it acceptable to leave many small problems unsolved. We're okay with saying, "suck it up, everyone has to deal with some level of unfairness, and the current status quo already solves most of the most important issues you have to deal with." Or alternatively, "The status quo is indeed unacceptable, but we should focus on solving big, important issues X, Y and Z, and we won't be getting to your tiny issues any time soon, if ever."
There has to be a Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness, whether you're "alt-right" or not. Most of the argument is about where the line should be drawn.
I watched the video, and I agree with your conclusion. Yes, person B is obviously correct. Not every media and aspect of life is accessible to everyone
Some examples of problems where life is unfair and it would be absurd to try to make things fair.
Yes, I realize these are absurd examples, but absurdities often put premises and assumptions into question.
Innuendo Studios doesn't touch on his premises and assumptions - that the scale of a problem that affects someone is worth addressing. Or how much time/effort should be spent solving these problems. He barely touches on the idea of what level of inconvenience should be acceptable to accommodate certain groups of people.
Also, notice the framing of the premise "some people do and should take extra precautions just to exist in the world alongside the rest of us" which puts the idea that person B thinks those people should not exist if they don't take those extra precautions.
Speaking of trigger warnings, I can think of a few (admittedly not well thought out) reasons why I may not want trigger warnings that are different from the strawman he used at the start of his video.
Also ironic this guy talks about power in his video when trying to enforce societal changes such as implementing trigger warnings (and some people even go so far as to try to make it mandatory) is in itself a display of using power on people by enforcing changes that they don't want imposed on them. Rules for thee, not for me I suppose.
Spitballing here (and also I don't care) but given that we're talking about digital content, maybe someone could write a bot that uses AI to review the item and add some reasonable (low-hundreds) list of triggers as metadata, and then the consumer can set their pertinent triggers and automatically receive a warning that they want, whereas everyone else is unaffected.
Again I don't have a horse in this race but this seems workable pretty soon.
In fact, though, I side with those who argue that it's on the consumer to decide what they wish to consume. If there's a market for trigger warnings, well, the market will provide solutions.
I also side with those who suggest that avoiding things which make one uncomfortable (or 'open up' 'past trauma') is a major impediment to the healing process. Trauma-as-identity is a failure mode for human existence and getting over it as quickly as is healthy is imperative. And yes, fwiw I say this as someone with some hard things in my past.
This is probably the ideal solution for trigger warnings for people who may want trigger warnings. (And for those, if they exist, that may benefit from trigger warnings).
I wonder if this solution is adequate for the activist type that might argue on the point of trigger warnings though. I'm sure most reasonable people would be perfectly happy with such a solution, but something tells me there is a small vocal group of activist types that would not be satisfied with such a solution and would rather force putting trigger warnings in front of media. Couple of reasons they might come up with:
I don't think I'm making up a caricature or a strawman here. If you watch the video, near the end of this video Innuendo Studios make the following statements:
"If you are a person with triggers it means other people can provoke a panic response in you against your will. The severity of the response is frankly immaterial. The point is, they have power over you. And if you're going to operate in this world as equals, you need their word that this power will not be invoked."
He also summarized the viewpoint of the Didoer as follows: "Yes I do have power over you... and you should just let me have it."
Would people who view the world in such power dynamics be satisfied with the proposed solution? Actually, your solution might be a really good test to see if the other person genuinely wants to help people who have traumas/PTSD or if they're just ideologically motivated.
(Disclaimer that I know you're not making this argument.)
This seems to map 1:1 with mental illness. Through that lens, anyone could have a powerful and irrational response to anything and of course we all understand — I hope — that global civilization can't entirely rework itself to cater to every individual's specific needs. If the common-sense part of this argument isn't enough, it could be pointed out that those needs are contradictory. The reality is that people are different, and different is inherently unequal, and thus different people cannot operate in the world as equals. This is plain as day to anyone who isn't way up on some kind of blinding ideology.
This is interesting because it makes protecting the experience of the, uh, entriggered person the responsibility of anyone seeking to express themselves at all. A message of "It's your job to improve your life" makes a lot more sense than "It's everyone else's job to improve your life." People with these issues are free and, in my book, even encouraged to agitate for themselves. And the rest of us are free to do the same. The chips fall where they may.
If someone has actual power over you, and that power is intolerable to you, the solution is historically violence. As you suggested earlier, I think, my concern is that something like this ends up being enforced by violence via the state. And, as you say, some people aren't going to be happy with any kind of reasonable compromise.
As always I worry about the power of women's tears in politics.
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