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 -
Most of your examples are either claims about the future (AI) or questions about values (democracy, immigration) where there is no "right" answer, at least right now. It's unusual to find questions about objective, observable facts of the near past or present like "did event X factually happen?" or "what is the objective shape of the planet?" where either position can be strongly justified.
Where people do retreat away from the bailey of agreements and factual claims to the motte of "it's fine to hold my belief!" it reflects a deep detachment from reality, to an extent that there's nothing that could bring them back. The arguments are just window dressing, they are not the point, trying to address them is just bad form.
I don't think I ever heard anyone say "I would be for mass immigration even if it was caused a massive spike in crime!", so taking people at their word, I don't think these are purely questions of about values. You might say we shouldn't take people at their word, but given how we went from "there is no immigration crisis" to "the republicans are the ones preventing us from fixing the immigration crisis", it feels like people's opinions on the issue are connected to some consequences, and aren't just an expression of their values.
That could be a different phrasing of exactly what I'm getting at. I would say that there is a right answer, but we have no way of knowing it. In these cases the best way to find it's approximation is creating a contested territory, and letting people fight it out.
I disagree. For years claims about Epstein were "detached from reality" "conspiracy theories" right up until they were proven right. It would have been wrong to rely on the "rigorous" approach here, as it would result in the issue being dropped, and hard evidence never being found. Same applies to things like election fraud, barring a dumb stroke of luck, or an outright confession (though I think even a confession could be dismissed), we are never going to get hard evidence on this question, and it's disingenuous to act like if the claim was true evidence for it should be accessible.
I'm someone in favor of open borders and would bite this bullet. It's fair to say my position is primarily (but not exclusively) based on valuing freedom of movement over a consequential analysis. It's hard to cleanly break the two however, because a significant objection I have against immigration restrictions is that they're insufficiently narrow. If I had to pick a restriction, I would always pick something like "anyone with IQ >150 is allowed in" over something like "only 10,000 Cambodians per year".
That's fair, in your case I'd say the disagreement is values based, and to be fair there's a significant values component to my opinion on the issue as well, but the public debate seems to revolve around consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link