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 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.
Sure. And if you want to represent that, then represent that fully, openly, and honestly, instead of acting as a defender of modern Reddit conceptions of gentle "civility", "charity", and "kindness" while then also trying to ambush me with your presumed interpretation of what I believe when you think it'll act as a sufficient enough "gotcha". (Of course fights of honor often also end honorably with no fatalities and foes agreeing to cease hostilities upon the satisfaction of said honor, whereas I have no doubt that least 20-50% of the "champions" of modern "civility", not necessarily you, would, with only some half-feigned reluctance, send to the gulags anyone who they see as guilty of "hate speech" or "being a heckin' dick" or whatever if they could.) Don't sneakily change sides based on what benefits your purposes at the moment or assume you can wear another ideology's complex and nuanced beliefs about the relationship between honor and violence as a rhetorical costume to score one cheap point.
And? So fucking what? Does Scott Siskind even read this place? And if he does, is he going to challenge me to a fight? (Obviously not.) If so, I'd almost certainly kick his ass lmao. (Which means that he wouldn't challenge me to a fight, because that'd just make the insult to his honor worse. His only hope for retaining some would be to try to defuse my words with cleverer ones (also a perfectly valid right-wing masculine strategy for responding to insults to one's honor). What he hopefully would not do is what you're doing, just whining like a baby and lecturing like a schoolmarm, which never earns you points with anyone who matters, generally only with random online moderators occasionally.)
Well, that's dumb then, because fire has traditionally been one of humanity's greatest sources of light. Maybe you need to stop thinking you fell out a coconut tree and are too good for a little old-school lighting.
If you think of a classic fire, maybe Ogg the caveman is hanging near it because he's cold. But maybe Ugg conversely is staying within range of it so he can use its light to find something he's looking for... a particularly sharp rock... so he can beat Ogg to death. So one man's heat can be another man's light. But the light is not always peaceful and the heat is not always violent. And if the heat is violent... maybe Oog intercepts Ugg's murder attempt and throws him into the fire, burning him to death in defense of good ol' innocent (as far as we know in this limited scenario) Ogg. Sounds like the heat was a good thing here.
Honest question: Why can't people like you just post any sort of a good rebuttal of anything I've said, if you're in such a titter about it, instead of just bitching about how I said it? Even if I were only "optimizing for" (another sign this is an NPC concern: it's constantly phrased by the concerned in the exact same literal thought-terminating cliche slogan form, "optimizing for heat [instead of/rather than] light", even though as I've already demonstrated and will more below it's a mediocre little metaphor in the first place that basically ignores the actual complexities of the concepts it incorporates) heat, which isn't true, heat at least often automatically tends to produce some light (again, going based off of physics here, that is the real world and the actual complexities of the concepts), whereas "civility" policing (at least how you're doing it) literally adds absolutely nothing to the object-level conversation.
I mean, you want to know what really try to optimize for light instead of heat (though you'll often certainly still feel the heat, sometimes unexpectedly, when exposed to one, supporting my central point)? Lasers. Which are very dangerous, more so than many if not most forms of fire in their most optimized form, and are consequently more banned/illegal than most forms of fire in most places (at least in the US). (Probably nobody ever got on a watchlist for owning a flamethrower, but if you buy too many powerful lasers... See "laseranon" from /pol/.) In regards to the object-level conversation that started this dispute (the virtue of retaliation), they say "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (which is a dumbass saying because it's transparently not true if you think about it literally for 10 seconds), but I think the best optimizations for light instead of heat would do that far more effectively.
Do you really ever actually want anything to "optimize for light"? If you screwed in a lightbulb that truly optimized for light with modern technology, you'd immediately go blind. If your computer or phone optimized for light instead of those wasteful heat-producing computations, you'd have a very bright room indeed, but you wouldn't be posting here. And certainly, for example in the winter, no human can live comfortably without a healthy dose of heat.
Think of all those people who live in Middle Eastern, African, etc. desert environments without AC, who close their houses up during the day and block the windows to try to keep the cool night air trapped in, achieve passive cooling, and avoid the sun's rays. Yet they're still being pounded upon by the sun's heat, without receiving any of its glorious light! Obviously they should open a curtain and stare at it. Optimize for light! Take in as much as possible! (If you feel your retinas tingling painfully, that means you're doing a good job. Note: Future perception of any light after optimizing for light not guaranteed.)
To be clear, am I brashly stretching and torturing what was ultimately originally intended as nothing more than a cutesy little "rule of thumb" metaphor here, putting more literal weight on it than it was ever intended to bear? Am I being a bit silly? Of course. But the fact that such a cutesy little "rule of thumb" has apparently come to be seen by some like you as some sort of iron law at a minimum more than justifies poking at it a bit, and there are real points and considerations to be found in the pokes. My examples show how there's always the possibility of too much of a good thing and how optimizing too heavily in the "good" direction can often cause similar problems as the "bad" direction that one is attempting to avoid. Now pick your brain a bit and ruminate on my extended metaphors in the context of conversation and not literal physics. It could be productive.
Again, your own metaphors defy the points you're trying to make. Scouts (in a military context, which I'm assuming since you mention soldiers right after) are soldiers (who fight exclusively for one side). And while it's not their primary duty, they're more than willing to fire if necessary. In fact the whole point of their occupation is to allow their side to shoot the other more effectively.
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