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 -
This thread invites people to discuss things they were wrong about, but most people are using it to grind their usual axes.
"I was naive when I was younger. I thought that the outgroup might be reasonable on a certain position, but I underestimated how evil and far-reaching the policy is in practice. I know better now (and presumably am a bit closer to hating the outgroup with every fiber of my being)."
There are a few that dodge that description but the vast majority fall into it.
I’m not sure if you think my answers qualify, but I think at least part of what you’re observing is due to the nature of the question.
“I thought X and now I don’t” would seem to warrant a bit of a follow up as to why you did and why now you don’t.
Most things people think, especially early on, are from being told, not experience. Told by whom? Well….
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the "but" belongs there. If you believe you used to be wrong about something, then of course it's natural that you'd have an axe to grind with whatever forces led you to believing that wrong thing in the past. And grinding that axe is how you discuss things you were wrong about in the past.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're not completely wrong, but you're being a little uncharitable. Not sure if you would put my post in that category, but certainly mine is like the majority of posts here consisting of people who used to hold much more progressive beliefs and now believe they were wrong.
But that's the point of the thread (and to some extent, the Motte), isn't it? We test our shady thinking, our untested beliefs, and hopefully are willing to change our thinking based on new evidence. If no one is ever willing to change their mind, what's the point of discussion beyond points-scoring and dunks and getting affirmation from fellow travelers? (Something that many people seem to be here to do and get very angry when told that's not what this place is for.)
I can see how it would be discouraging for a leftist to see a bunch of former leftists saying "Boy, was I stupid," and no former right-wingers are coming forward to say "I changed my mind about women/blacks/gays/Jews," etc. This place attracts a lot more disaffected leftists than it attracts disaffected rightists.
Most of the posts here don't really seem like they're "testing shady thinking". For that, it would be something like Scott's mistakes page. Most of the posts here instead seem like justifications of taking a few swirls down the toxoplasmic spiral. It seems a lot more "boo outgroup" with just a thin veneer of "here's how I was foolish enough to fall for their lies".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, it does seem that disaffected left-wingers are the majority of this forum. I know that label fits me pretty well.
That will make things extremely annoying for the left-wing people here. Because they are constantly confronted with people who used to hold left-wing beliefs, but now don't. And it implies that those old beliefs were stupid and wrong. And it comes off as smugness.
But are those old beliefs actually stupid and wrong? Well, that's why we talk about them. Who knows, maybe in another 20 years, I'll be left-wing again? I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I don't know which ones yet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link