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 -
You're just describing conflict theory from the inside view. The essence of conflict theory is saying things you don't believe as means to an end rather than to reach understanding. You can think conflict theory is good and normal, it is, but there is no way to describe knowingly saying wrong things on purpose as mistake theory.
Sure there is, that's why I touched on social pressure and conditioning. It's one of the mistakes (hah!) I think Scott made in Conflict vs Mistake. Most people are not making well thought out rational decisions. They are adopting their beliefs and outlooks not necessarily consciously. Even the Mistake theorists. If someone believes whatever rationalizations they have adopted and thinks the other side will take advantage of a current culture war issue, or because it will hinder their career, or because it makes for an uncomfortable conversation, then they can choose not to do X, or to do Y without necessarily being conflict theorists. Selfishness exists outside of Mistake vs Conflict.
Just lying for personal advantage or for some other reason does not on its own make one a conflict theorist. It is only if she is doing so in the service of politics as war. And just to be clear that may be the case, but her actions here don't tell us because she can also derive personal advantage by lying/not examining her views too much. In other words there are other factors that impact people's decisions beyond conflict/mistake.
But also consider if I am a mistake theorist up for the Supreme court. I believe that my opponents are wrong and misinformed and that the truth could be reached if they only realized the mistakes they are making. But 1) I may not believe I can correct them in this context, with the time available. so 2) Even a mistake theorist might decide that lying or evading in this context is the better option. Mistake theorists can be pragmatic. Because 3) When I am a Supreme Court justice I will have plenty of time to make my arguments I otherwise would not.
The core of mistake theory hinges on why you believe people have different beliefs about politics. But that doesn't mean you also believe you can solve that particular issue easily or quickly. Any Mistake theorist is unlikely to think they can convince Democrats/Republicans they are wrong easily or quickly, because if that were the case it would already have been done. So a Mistake theorist even though they would prefer to settle this with a good old fashioned honest debate can take other options depending on the situation. If Earth was going to be destroyed unless Republicans and Democrats united in 7 days, then even if you felt it was possible to come to a truth and convince people, you may still opt to stage a false flag alien invasion or something. Your political philosophy is only one of the things that impacts your decision making.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link