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 -
The required assumption of such a counterfactual is "if a rightist made an attempt on Biden's life". Also assuming the conservative reaction to it isn't making a point by using a counterfactual, it's just exhibiting your own assumptions.
No, the counterfactual and associated, unavoidable assumption is:
You cannot divorce one from the other. You might well disagree with @2rafa or me about how reality works, and given that it's pitting one set of observations about how massive numbers of internet partisans behave against another, there's not much room to resolve it conclusively beyond what a given person finds plausible.
That's a useless counterfactual; it doesn't convince anyone of anything. A useful counterfactual would require that the consequences of the counterfactual be agreed upon.
If Trump had died, I think [Blank] would happen.
A few possible responses.
A. Trump didn't die. (breakfast anyone?)
B. [Blank] didn't happen.
C. I don't think [Blank] would happen.
D. I think that [Something else] would happen instead.
E. I agree.
If [Blank] is, [reasonable possible consequence] or [totally unreasonable consequence], does either option make B a good response?
The first two results for Counterfactual in google,
If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over. The counterfactual is kangaroos without tails, the assumption, is that a kangaroos tails is necessary for balance and without them, kangaroos would fall over.
If Peter believed in ghosts, he would be afraid to be here. The counterfactual is Peter believing in ghosts, the assumption is that the location would be scary for a person who believes in ghosts.
In as much as a counterfactual is used in a conversation, it is to display your model of reality, for instance, your assumptions about the balance of kangaroos, or the mental states of people who believe in ghosts. The discussion that follows would either be to agree with the persons model and the extrapolations that they postulate in the counterfactual, or disagree with it, and argue for something else. Kangaroos actually only use their tails for balance when moving at speed, and so kangaroos without tails but at rest, would not topple. Peter is actually stupidly brave, so even if he believed in ghosts in this spooky location, he would not fear them. Peter's belief in ghosts does not include a belief that ghosts can harm him, so he would be interested instead of afraid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link