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 -
OK this is just silly now.
Harris: "the central park 5!"
Trump: "the economy!"
Harris: "I have a plan!"
I don't know what's even going on anymore.
To be honest, the decline of American culture and democracy. That these are the best minds we can produce to run the country should be deeply troubling. At best we’re looking at a clown show, two candidates who think in sound bites and have no actual ideas. At least neo-reactionaries have ideas. I’m not fully on board, but they can generally tell you what kinds of things they want to do, why, and why this would work. That coming from someone who isn’t a neo-reactionary, but is more or less interested in fixing problems. I’m anti-pothole is not a plan. But we have two people who think in sound bites trying to convince an audience of uneducated dolts to clap along.
Why would you try to infer anything about how either Harris or Trump think based on how they present in public? They're actively trying to say the things that will win them the election rather than what they actually think. And if sound bites play well with their constituencies, well...obviously that's what they're incentivized to optimize? Being responsive to what your voters want is a feature, not a bug. If you want politicians that behave better in public, convince a large enough fraction of the population to punish their candidate for vapid sound bites or idiotic name calling.
So do rationalists. So why do neither group win elections, particularly given that the latter is supposed to be 'systematized winning?'
Honestly, because of the education system in the USA, where most schools don’t teach anything like epistemology (critical thinking as taught in American schools means memorizing a list of fallacies and learning to notice them in a piece of writing), reading and math are both pretty bad. And our science education is so bad that people don’t understand germ theory.
The second thing is that the media covers elections as horse racing. There’s much more emphasis on covering how the debates moved the polls or who won the debate than anything the candidates actually said (except for the zingers and insults, of course). We aren’t talking about what to do about any problems we actually face. There’s no talk about reducing street crime, drugs, fix the roads, schools, mental health, cost of living, and lots of other very serious issues. Instead, it’s coconut tree memes and “those guys are weird”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link