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 is certainly a valid point, and there's a real phenomenon there that needs to be investigated. However, Marx is a particularly poor example to illustrate @ArjinFerman's original point ("Just talk about their ideas, if they're so great"), because people do in fact talk about his ideas, much more often than they read his original texts. Phrases like "class struggle", "proletarian revolution", and "capitalism in crisis" are deployed frequently without specific reference to Marx's name or one of his texts. There have been plenty of avowed socialists who never read Marx. So clearly his ideas have taken on a life of their own beyond the confines of his original writing.
As for why there's still continuing interest in Marx's original texts themselves: think of philosophy like a giant thread on TheMotte. When you pick up a book written by a contemporary Marxist philosopher, you're reading a big post full of quote replies that's 20 levels deep, and it's replying to a bunch of other people, who were ultimately replying to Marx's OP. When you're trying to get up to speed on a long conversation with lots of back-and-forth arguments, isn't it better to read the whole thing yourself so you have the full context in all its nuance, instead of relying on someone else's paraphrase? Because that's what we're dealing with here: it's a dialogue between people about politically fraught issues, rather than a mathematical or scientific treatise.
If you wanted to understand someone's views on, say, abortion, would you rather read a paraphrase of their views, or would you rather read their own explanation of their views in their own words? Philosophy intrinsically deals with issues where the definitions of the principal terms are vague and contentious, and attempts at paraphrase and simplification are prone to distortion by preexisting biases. You probably wouldn't want to rely on a committed pro-choice advocate to give a sympathetic gloss to a pro-life article, especially when you can just, you know, read what the pro-life person said in the first place. Even another pro-life advocate might introduce inaccuracies into a paraphrase that the first pro-life advocate might reject, because despite being on the same side, they might not share the exact same conception of central concepts like "life", "murder", and "personhood". The contentious nature of the issues makes it harder to substitute out the original texts.
I'd dispute that. Marx seems like the central example of an author you're supposed to have read (preferably in original German) and if you haven't, you're a pleb. Few people defend his ideas in themselves, and the first defence of them tends to be "you haven read enough theory".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link