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 -
What would you consider a moderate vs a centrist? A moderate being someone temporarily in the political middle, while a centrist is someone who chooses to be there? Vocabulary might matter here more than usual. I'm not sure I quite agree with your characterization of the philosophy, such that it is, as intellectually lazy, and think it describes some sort of mythical centrist that does not actually exist.
Like, isn't he just describing a regular person who calls balls as he sees them without bandwagoning too much? Someone cautious of getting too over-engaged in partisan passion? Additionally, merely being in the center of two extremes does not imply inaction, though some degree of approval of the status quo might be implied. Both extremes want action, so at least in some cases if you average the two, don't you still get action of some kind? Of course some political positions are a simple tug-of-war, but I feel like most are more like you're traveling on the freeway, and trying to decide which exit to take, or maybe that you're deciding where to eat and someone says Chinese and someone else says Burgers and you end up at a Japanese fusion place that isn't quite what either pictured but still tastes good. IDK, I'm bad with analogies but you get the picture. The idea is, a centrist option can still be an actual blended action, not just inaction due to indecision.
I think one can distinguish between centrist (ie someone who believes the truth is between two alleged poles as a truism) and Burkean conservatism (change slowly as you might break things). One can be a progressive Burkean, liberal Burkean, libertarian Burkean, nationalist Burkean, etc.
That is, the first is about identifying the two poles and plopping yourself in the middle. The second has a vision about the world they want but argues going very slowly towards that goal.
Both tend to favor status quo but have different failure modes.
I'm happy to grant that Burkean conservatism is one of the things I'm describing when I praise centrism or moderation, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think moderate and centrists are roughly the same and synonyms.
I have nothing against a centrists. You can live a happy life in country with bad government. You show up to work everyday, marry the cute girl, impregnate your wife a few times, and raise a few good kids. It’s a fine noble life.
But it does not give them some moral high ground on politics or an enlightened view. It’s hoping politics works out in a way that doesn’t ruin their life.
Not everyone needs to be airplane engineers. And know every intricate detail. You can still ride the airplane, but you are hoping the dude at Boeing is a good engineer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link