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 ad actually strikes me as too jokey to be effective. But maybe it doesn't hit close enough to home for me to understand why it would be effective or offensive in either direction. It just seems like a standard current year SNL skit in that it's not really funny but you can tell it's trying to be and mostly aiming for some agreement claps.
It’s basically this comic/meme, intending to make conservative women feel gross when men in their lives have opinions about sexual morality.
Jon Haidt’s work on Moral Foundations Theory suggests that grey tribers don’t have instinctive moral judgments except when freedom or coercion are involved. I’m not surprised it’s not hitting here as fighting words like it did over on patriots.win when someone posted it there.
Can you expand on what you're saying here? Obviously it's fighting words. But this isn't the place for fighting words, this is where we politely discuss things.
And my moral foundations aren't particularly grey tribe: when I took the moral foundations test, my highest foundation was purity, by far -- like massively higher than even most conservatives.
(Although the more interesting thing about my moral foundations is that on Care/Harm and Fairness I score similar to the liberal average, and on liberty I score close to the libertarian average. The only one in which I didn't get close to matching the highest concern was Loyalty, which is probably explained by my contrarianism. I guess what you could pull from this is, if there's moral condemnation to be had, I'm there for it. Even if my in-group is the one that needs to be condemned. Which makes sense, my ancestors were Puritans.)
So I guess you could say I'm literally the guy the ad is attacking. But the reason I don't have an especially intense emotional reaction is that the views they're criticizing aren't real ones, they certainly aren't mine. I do have a disgust reaction to the way in which my segment of the poltiical spectrum is being slandered. What are you expecting me to do, start beating my chest?
I was trying to give user Plural one possible reason “it doesn't hit close enough to home for me to understand why it would be effective or offensive in either direction.”
For you, clearly it does hit home, as it does for me. But this is a rationalist space, so I’m not surprised to run into someone for whom it doesn’t.
And for the record I find it a very offensive ad.
Okay, fair enough. Apologies if that was too confrontational. From what you wrote it sounded like you were describing the overall reaction.
And I guess I find it offensive, but that's paired with a healthy dose of "wait, this is actually what you people think I believe? Really? This is your best shot? This is your big moment? This is it? You had to make this wild stuff up? You understand so little of your opposition you've actually crippled your ability to attack? Really?" so my overall reaction is that it is more of a joke than something I'm seriously upset by.
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