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 agree strongly. There is a set of views which society generally considers to be cancellable (in the sense that the currently ruling elite does, as does a supermajority of people who are smart enough to have well-formed views on the issue). Steve Hsu, Razib Khan, Robin Hanson and even Scott Siskind all in fact hold some of these views. So "cancel the rationalists" is, by the rules the Grauniad and NYT are playing by, good journalism. The partisan-flipped version of "don't cancel the rationalists" is "It is okay for communists to act in Hollywood", not "The actors on Joe McCarthy's list are not in fact communists".
I am a pro-free-speech liberal, so both "racists should not be cancelled" and "it is okay for communists to act in Hollywood" are bullets I am willing to swallow. But most people aren't.
Scott is no longer trying to conceal his real name, so you can't doxx him by publishing it any more. If doxxing means anything, it means either
Okay, I may have stretched the word doxxed a bit, but looking on the about page of ACX, it seems to me that Scott Alexander does not prefer for his writing activities to be linked to his last name. Furthermore, that is the name under which he is known, adding his last name will not provide important context for the readers.
Insisting on stating his last name seems at least impolite. Given his history with journalists, I would roughly compare it to deliberately deadnaming a trans person.
If the Guardian had a policy to consistently write using the full civil names of people, as in "after finishing my latest hit piece, I danced to Mrs. Ciccone's music, watched the meeting of Mr. Bergoglio and Mr. Thondup on TV and finally fell asleep reading the biography of my idol Mr. Dzhugashvili" (or something), then a case could be made that they might also want to refer to Our Rightful Caliph by his civil name. But most of the time, they are fine referring to people by their common handle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link