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 -
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.
I took the phrase "it is entirely true" to be an assertion that it is true in every particular.
But if you grant that it's just a salacious, I would say needlessly offensive or aggressive, way of saying "I believe Scott is too influenced by left-wing or social-justice-oriented thinkers", then I think that just makes my point for me. You expressed that point in a needlessly aggressive way.
"You are too influenced by socially left-wing thinkers" and "you let your girlfriend lock you in a chastity cage" are not equivalent statements, even if you mean the latter as a metaphor for the former.
Put it this way. If you told me "you're too influenced by the left", I'd respond by curiously asking what you mean, and what blind spots you think I might have. If you told me "you're a beta sissy cuck", I'd punch you in the face. Make sense?
Well it is, accounting for what it's actually saying.
I'm "needlessly aggressive or offensive", but you're trying to buttress your own points about "civility" with talk of punching me in the face?
Thanks for proving my point about how it's the supporters of "civility" who are in fact often its worst and most unhinged adherents when challenged. You see a similar pattern quite frequently on Reddit:
Am I saying you're as extreme as the hypothetical example above? Of course not. (Even actual Redditors aren't mostly as extreme as it in the vast majority of cases; it's rather a hyperbole for comedic effect of course.) Are you a left-winger? Unsure, maybe not based on your denigration of "poly". But it's a pattern I've noticed that you just fit again exactly.
Whether you call it "civility" or "wholesomeness" or being "gentlemanly", whatever grand standard of etiquette you insist (eventually forcibly, as you've shown) others meet, people like you are always paragons of pleasantness and civilization compared to people like me... until your precious communicative or social mores are threatened/violated. Then you go on the attack worse than any of my kind ever do, high on your own supply of righteousness.
See why I'm skeptical of your kind? See why I don't think you're actually morally, intellectually, communicatively, etc. superior to me, just creepy smiling faces with knives concealed?
It comes down to something like inward vs. outward tact filters. I don't fully agree with the explanation presented at that link of the phenomenon, but there's something to it
The point is this: Blunt inward tact filter autists might piss you off a bit more sometimes, if you're the type of person who easily malds over words. But nobody's ever been lynched by a mob of them mad about how he's expressed himself.
And that is why to a degree I genuinely despise your kind. You wield your "charity" or "civility" or whatever you want to call it not as a tool to improve the world, but as a weapon to beat others with. You are everything you claim to be against, and you've been killing people for putting you down on the fainting couch since Socrates. You are not the truth-seekers; you are the truth-killers. You would rather humanity stay on Earth politely than go to Mars "uncharitably". It's an attitude I consider beneath contempt in general, and you just completed the bingo card of its hypocritical tendencies.
I thought that in the pugilistic, culturally-conservative right-wing world, the idea that inter-male violence is a reasonable response to attacks on one's honour was pretty commonplace?
Realistically, no, if we were in person I would not hit you. I'm too gentle by nature. But I hope you understood the point I was making, which is, incidentally, a point that you wrote eight paragraphs to avoid answering. My point was that the insults change the meaning of the statement. "You're influenced too much by the left" and "Your penis is caged by your girlfriend" are not equivalent statements. The latter is an insult - it is a deliberate and extreme provocation. Your chastity cage comment was fighting words.
I criticised you for engaging in such provocations - for lighting fires rather than shining lights.
I think that point remains true, and it's a point that you haven't replied to in favour of instead ranting for paragraphs about why you hate some imaginary stereotype of a person that you've just associated me with. Okay. Good for you. But you are still optimising for heat, rather than light; you're being a soldier, rather than a scout.
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
More options
Context Copy link