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 -
Is that criticism or praise? I've seen some strong opinions on both sides about Kulak.
Why not both?
Because I care about historical accuracy when I read essays about history. I think someone's ability to judge the historical accuracy of "early human history or very late prehistory" is orthogonal to whether they view KulakRevolt in a positive or negative light. If someone does have a good knowledge of that part of human history and is in a position to judge the accuracy of the linked article, I want to hear from them! I want to know how to adjust my Baysean weights on this topic. "One person provides a link to an interesting and convincing article" has less weight than "One person provides a link to an interesting and convincing article" && "Another person says this is a good description of the history", and maybe I'd even adjust in the other direction if I saw ""One person provides a link to an interesting and convincing article" && "Another person says this is a deceptive retelling of history and provides examples". What we got is "One person provides a link to an interesting and convincing article" && "Another person implies they know about this topic and makes an ambiguous post about their view", and that's not a valuable contribution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link