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 -
3 years is instantly? But I'll expand on my unnecessarily snarky comment.
Let's say you are anti-murder. Surely, a nice thing to be. But now you see someone about to blow up a bomb in a market so you shoot them dead. Are you still anti-murder? Probably yes, because you saved many people from being murdered at the cost of one.
Since you are a good utilitarian you decide, like Dexter, to start murdering serial killers. You kill 10 people who you are pretty sure would have killed more than 10 others. Are you still anti-murder? Probably... Except remember that time that Dexter killed an innocent person to keep from getting caught. You do it too. Are you you still anti-murder? After all, your expected value is still positive. At least, I think... What if you kill 5 people to save 6? What if you kill a guy who has a 20% chance of being a terrorist?
The point I'm trying to make is that politicians always try to justify the current war as an exception to the general principle of "no war". And these politicians are almost always wrong. Their complicated strategic calculations fall apart the instant they come into contact with reality. Simple heuristics are best. Military conflict begets more military conflict, and wars almost always cost more than people think (Hofstadler: this is true even when you take this into account).
When you're doing utilitarian calculations that involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, make sure your calculations are correct, and give yourself a wide latitude for the chance they might not be. While the initial defense of Ukraine was a good thing, continuing to spend the lives of innocent Ukrainian and Russian men in this conflict is not. And escalation is practically a crime against humanity.
If you want to wear the mantle of peace, you need to have a strong pro-peace bias, even if that means you aren't always a pacificist. And there is no way you could possibly characterize the actions of the U.S. blob in that light.
More options
Context Copy link