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 -
"Kind", no. But I do desire to be relatively unbiased (other than by what I see as the truth) and knowledge-seeking (and it's worth noting that it's the pursuit of "kindness" that often inhibits those two more important values), and I think that I'm at a reasonable level of both and that the quoted paragraph in controversy by no means contradicts that. If effective rhetoric invalidates truth and knowledge-seeking, then there is not a truthful or knowledgeable person on this planet (or if there is, he has zero tools to communicate any of it to the rest of us or at least is apparently not supposed to use them, which seems a bit unproductive to me).
That's the rub, isn't it? Any time you make a venue to attract intelligent people founded on a certain set of principles, if you succeed, those principles will inevitably be challenged, because intelligent people (who you wanted to attract) always challenge principles and ideas. Perhaps by its original standards this place would have stayed better if it had stayed dumber, because dumb people listen and obey.
But yeah, I'm fine with being proud of not being lockstep in agreement with communicative norms inspired by weird Berkeley polysex people who have for the most part collectively accomplished nothing, even easy layups like all getting rich on Bitcoin so they could influence everything with money, other than mostly ruining their reputation in the mainstream. They don't have a monopoly on truth or knowledge-seeking any more than I do, and their blog posts from 2014 or whenever about Edwardian Salafi Confucius Lite etiquette or whatever are not the gospel for all time.
As mentioned too, the people who most adhere to the commandments of "niceness" on this site and other places like it overwhelmingly aren't actually that nice deep down either (including its alleged enforcers, if you'll look at the angry response left on my post by a mod here who chose to don their hat for it despite declaring it not even a warning) I often find. At their best, they're better at keeping the knife hidden behind their back. At their worst, they're merely sneakier about pulling it out and plunging it into your throat before you've even noticed.
That's why I'd rather hear it straight and say it straight, even if pesky human feelings and shocking realities like "conflict" and "People often associate negative emotionality with sociopolitical and cultural issues, especially when those who oppose their preferred beliefs and have hurt them over it appear." end up involved. That to me is helping the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Revealing that I'm biased by what I see as the truth in a particular evidentiary or even emotional (yes, we are not Vulcans, not even the rats) direction is helping the conversation stay overall less biased (or at least transparent about it, which realistically with humans involved is the best you can hope for). Everything else is a smokescreen of little imperial court mandarins just desperately trying not to rock the boat. Boring and pointless.
There may be a correlation between intelligence and contrarianness, but I think you're going a step beyond that and asserting a correlation between intelligence and aggression, or between intelligence and lack of charity.
I find that much more doubtful.
I will repeat my recent reply to a very similar objection for efficiency's sake in response to you:
So while I was perhaps asserting such a correlation (not sure if I want to commit to that or explain more nuance, but it's not super important), and I am perhaps wrong if I was, it's still worth nothing that no such correlation is required for "aggressive", "charity-lacking" (by your standards, as by my standards the mods here often lack the most charity when modding others' posts) people to be all up in your intellectual discussion venue (based on subjective frequency of appearance).
I haven't asserted that agreeability correlates with intelligence either. In fact, I just said that I think plausibly intelligence correlates with being contrarian.
But being contrarian, or even just disagreeableness simpliciter, is not the same thing as being a passionate culture warrior who seeks heat rather than light. I don't particularly care to discuss moderation here, particularly since, in my experience, culture and implicit norms are vastly more important than explicit rule enforcement.
Where I object to what you're saying is that I think you're defending a pugilistic, uncharitable approach to discussion, which I think is opposed to a goal like actually learning. I think a measure of charity, of good-faith curiosity and desire to understand different perspectives, is necessary for intellectual growth, and that's what I think is lacking in what you advocate.
That doesn't mean I think people should be dishonest, passive, or should feign agreement. Forthrightness is an intellectual virtue. But that is still a long way away from a Hitler-like "fire and brimstone" approach.
It may be that fire and brimstone are more persuasive - indeed, if your goal is to sway the public, they almost certainly are. In your top comment, you described Hitler as a 'great rhetorician', and indeed he was. But rhetoricians optimise for persuasiveness, rather than truth-seeking. 'Winning' in the sense of swaying more of an audience is something you may sometimes want to aim for. But here is supposed to be a place about 'winning' in the sense of learning and increasing your understanding.
That's why I think the aggressive, militant approach is wrong here. Soldier mindset, to use Galef's term, may be great for soldiers - but we're not soldiers. This is not a barracks.
I think the main conflict between us here is I don't see my "pugilistic" (good description) approach as inherently uncharitable. Can you point out where you think I lacked sufficient charity in terms of inaccurately or mendaciously characterizing things?
If I attack someone fiercely for what they've actually done that's truly terrible, then I've given them as much charity as they deserve, which is none, which means I've still been optimally charitable. Nor has the revelation of the truth been harmed. In fact, it's been enhanced by accurate characterization.
I'd argue that in the top post here you go beyond merely not being maximally charitable. You also engage in what I'd argue is childish name-calling. I won't criticise e.g. calling Scott's argument 'facile', which I think is within bounds, but how do you justify phrases like "ever since he let himself be fully chastity caged by Ozy and co."? That's a childish insult that is entirely unnecessary to the point you're actually making.
That seems to be to be more aggression than the minimum needed for truth-seeking or truth-speaking.
For what it's worth, I am in no way sympathetic to Scott's lifestyle or that of the Bay Area rationalists. You describe them as "weird Berkeley polysex people" above, and as it happens I fully agree that their lifestyles are deserving of contempt, particularly as regards so-called 'polyamory'. But when that is not germane to the point being made, I omit it.
It's not childish as children generally do not have knowledge of what a chastity cage is or what being in one would mean.
It is entirely true and also entirely necessary to the point I am making in that sentence as it is one of the main central criticisms of him worth being made these days.
Is it? By whom?
I have no idea whether or not it is literally true that Scott Alexander wears a chastity cage. Frankly I think that's an absurd thing to even discuss - there's no way it could be relevant to any argument he makes, and the norms of politeness I learned as a child were that it's rude to closely enquire into somebody else's sexual life anyway. I don't want to know what Scott Alexander's sexual fetishes are. I just don't.
At any rate, my understanding was that we were discussing cancellation, courtesy, and how much charity to show to those who disagree with us.
You do realize that it's not a literal comment, right? It means that Ozy and the other social justice types in his polysquad or whatever have restricted his intellectual and literary output more and more to that which does not offend left-wing/transsexual sensibilities. It is his mind that is in the chastity cage, not his penis (well maybe that too but I have no idea).
If it were his penis, that would still be a valid criticism, but that's not the criticism I was making.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe not, but I'm not sure that the agreeable are generally more intelligent than the "disagreeable" (assuming in this case that a mere propensity for dissent and adversarial analysis is equivalent to the psychological trait of disagreeableness, but I won't get into the weeds of dissecting that now) either. That means that at a minimum, if you try to draw intelligent people to your platform, you will attract both kinds. In fact, if even just 5% of intelligent people are somewhat "disagreeable" (or actually disagreeable), that's still enough people in raw terms to force every janny online into a jumble daily.
I didn't say there's no correlation, just that I was unsure of how to characterize it (as I was involved in a lot of other conversations in other subthreads at the time). And I will say now that there probably is a correlation, just that I don't think "disagreeable" is the right word to describe it. "Intellectually autonomous", "prone to questioning authority", "less vulnerable to pure peer pressure", etc. I think are all better phrases to describe the trait I'm talking about. And yes intelligent people are more likely to illustrate those traits, because why wouldn't they be? Again, it is the less intelligent who are more prone to listening and obeying, because they have less of an ability to internally formulate their own alternative ideas and behavioral schemes anyway.
It's also just a matter of the basic bell curve. There's no reason to think that on any given venue like this that the moderators are going to be the most intelligent people around, because some research has actually shown that management ability does not linearly correlate with intelligence but in fact drops off after around an IQ of 120 or so, because you as you get more intelligent than that you lose your ability to easily relate and communicate to people with lower IQs. So inevitably more intelligent people than the mods are going to show up (which isn't to say that everyone opposing the mods is automatically smarter than them), and why wouldn't they question them if they're literally smarter?
Not at all. First of all, driving other users away means absolutely nothing inherently and is often a good thing (quality over quantity any day IMO). 100 quality posters (whether they drive other people beyond them away or not) who are capable of generating new ideas and posts is far better than 50,000 posters who are not. (And indeed a community with the first configuration could be quite a livelier than one with the second, as the 100 posters are capable of driving the conversation forward, whereas the community with the 50,000 posters may just straight up die if none of them are even capable of generating any content for the others to respond to unoriginally.) Or if you want to talk about something like Reddit, it's still far superior to 5 million people who are only capable of generating and responding to fake Jerry Springer-esque personal stories, bot-posted AI slop and endless reposts, cheap political bait, etc. The people who want to manipulate them ensure there's plenty of new activity, but most of it sucks.
Other than that, I don't see what would possibly be bad about confrontation. What is the essence of discourse if not the confrontation of ideas and claims?
Personally I think it's the top 5% of those who insist on an adherence to imaginary standards who cause the problems and reduce the discourse quality (which is not to necessarily say quantity, but quality is obviously superior).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link