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 -
Wake me up when we're dealing with an unregulated market or a fairness-based reality.
We are discussing currently non-existent future states of humanity, and what it would take to get there. An unregulated fairness-based reality would be preferable, at least for me, to a gilead style oligarchy where everything is permissible for the .001% and everything is prohibited for everyone else.
I don't think 'we cannot realistically prevent the 0.001% doing things they want to do' and 'oligarchy where everything is permissible for the .001%' are equivalent, morally speaking. To take a provocative example, we cannot prevent sufficiently powerful and motivated individuals from having parties at Mr. Epstein's island, but that doesn't mean we should legalise paedophilia.
I'm more inclined to agree with you at the 1% and especially at the 10% mark, where I think hypocrisy and two-tier policing are more corrosive (because more frequent and visible) and more preventable.
I've been to epstein's island. Post conviction, on a lark with our tour guide/captain. But as you say, far below his level of depravity and privilege the double standard becomes an issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link