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 -
It should be. The appropriate response to opinions with which you dis-agree is to argue against them, not bully their advocates into silence or recantation.
Bullying your advocates into silence is so much easier and clearly more effective, that there would be no way to enact this at this point. As wise as the founders were, they didn't take Adams' concerns about the religious populace seriously enough, nor did they include protections and predictions for what would happen if traditional religion went on hiatus.
Bizarrely, political affiliation is protected in California, though I assume there's umpteen loopholes for why this has no effect on reality.
It had an effect; Damore used it to sue Google after his firing, but he settled so we don’t know how much he got.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It was a fine argument. We have overwhelming evidence that it can't be maintained in an environment of values-diversity. The same author went on to write Be Nice At Least Until You Can Coordinate Meanness, and then a year later wrote Kolmogorov Complicity And the Parable of Lightning. Now, I'm given to understand, he declines to write about these matters at all. Taken in sequence, it seems to me that the trajectory isn't hard to plot.
You know who hasn't had to engage in a grinding rhetorical retreat year after year? Zunger. He got it right the first time. Ditto for Ozy.
I think the idea of political ideology being at least somewhat protected (in my view, muc( like religion) simply because it’s easy and therefore tempting to use the threat of unemployment as a cudgel to prevent public expressions of non-mainstream politics. The temptation to use this, and thus use social media “job-swatting” (gee wouldn’t it be terrible if this crime-thinker’s name and photo and screenshots went to the HR office of his company X) to either threaten or punish public expressions of political opinions. And depending on where you happen to live, even relatively sane and even centrist opinions might well offend someone who can get you fired and thus potentially unemployable depending on industry. This creates a situation where people learn to self censor and be very careful about what they say in public. It would be highly irresponsible if you live in a blue city and work in a blue coded industry to openly express support for Israel, or to openly express opposition to abortion. And so it’s creating “the closet” for politics and somewhat religion if the religion is too strongly coded for a political outlook. People have talked about it here before, they don’t tell anyone they work with that they’re conservative, often trying to figure out how they can quietly signal opposition to things like pronouns in their email taglines without attracting the attention of HR.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link