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 -
Motte being the upspring of rationalist culture does harbor people that care more about whether something is actually true. And this is generally very good metric for politicians. Because they will make important decisions and when they do it doesn't matter how flashy or rethorically potent they are. And it's historically been the case that competent technocratic leaders were better for their populace than loud demagogues.
Yes to your previous points, but:
That's sure one opinion. I'm not entirely sure you are even wrong, but "competent technocratic leaders" is so poisoned by the modern EU and American Democrats.
This is the Elizabeth Warren of political views.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the problem! Nothing anyone says in a presidential debate is true. The highest apex virtue peak of substance-over-style is empty words. Biden says that a seven-point-four tax whatever is marginally more efficient at generating revenue for solar panels, and Trump counters with seven-point-three. When I'm elected, we'll make progress on making progress. We are beyond true and false. Politicians are constantly making promises they don't intend to keep, that nobody expects them to keep, that we have no means of making them keep. And we sit around debating whether those promises sound good!
No! Bring back the slaughter! Give me screaming and yells. I don't care if Biden's tax plan is technically more correct than Trump's. (How would you even know if it was? Who "decides"? Sixteen economists?) It doesn't mean anything. I want to know if Biden will shrink under pressure. I want to know if Trump has a vision. I want to know if the Vice President is a cringelord wineaunt Machiavellian doomerpilled femcel broke-a-loid edgy based-woke calmchad. Is God on his side? Does he have the mandate of Lady Heavenluck? Does he swing a big dick or is he going to get schlonged because he's a technocrat who can't lead smoke out of a fire?
Who cares about "the actual truth"? There isn't any! We all know that campaign promises are a lie. We all know what we already think about both candidates. We already know our hopes amd fears. Why do we put on this useless pretension of evaluating their technical words as though anybody cares? I also love highly ritualized choreographies of martial valor. This isn't a parade. This is war!
Personality is important. So is policy. For all that Trump is based and chad, his inability to grasp policy has prevented him from getting much done. And yeah, part of that is being able to use technical language. That doesn't mean that they need to be able to rattle off trivia like an Aaron Sorkin character, but it does mean they need to know the difference between Iraqi immigrants, Iranian insurgents, immunocompromised indigents, industrial incentives and indignant indigenes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link