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 -
If you're in a job interview, and you say something like "well sure maybe I'm a bad writer, but at least I know how to work a computer!" it doesn't really help you very much, even if the other applicants in fact are bad at computers. If you are responding to allegations about your age by... uh, confirming allegations about your age, and bringing up a different point, that's just mutual destruction, it doesn't actually help you much. I mean clearly in his worldview everyone has a binary choice, so if it truly were zero-sum, he'd be making a smart point. However, that's not how elections work, and especially not this one. Turnout is a thing.
And in fact more broadly, people have been debating whether it would be better to have an incompetent but moral leader, or a competent but immoral leader for a long time, it's a core philosophical debate. Hanging your whole strategy on appealing exclusively to people both a) accepting this framework and then on top of that b) preferring the former of the two is not a winning recipe. Both of those assumptions are very shaky! I know a fair number of people who actually do prefer a competent narcissist over a useless do-gooder due to the stability, and hope that the economy will be better with the trade-off.
More options
Context Copy link