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 -
I don't understand your first objection. There were a lot of "beliefs" hinted at in my post, not all of which I hold or think someone else holds.
Your second objection seems to entirely make my point. What counts as "beneficial" vs. "harmful" seems to significantly hinge on other politics. People select politics first, then determine "beneficial" or "harmful", and then decide whether something is 'corruption' or 'negotiation'... or whether it's 'righteous gatekeeping' or 'evil profit-seeking gatekeeping'. Your politics are baked in to your statements, which is why you think other politics can be just brushed aside and totally ignored. Moreover, because we've essentially nationalized policy (while retaining nominal private ownership), the entire arena is fundamentally a matter of confused national-scale politics, rather than distributed optimization to local and personal values.
Your third objection, and the responses it's already produced, absolutely seals my point. People are divided about the politics, which leads to all sorts of confusion in trying to 'design' a nationalized system with clear purpose and vision, instead leaving the matter ripe for all sorts of politicized framing effects.
I don't see the use in framing common disagreements between different groups as some sort of political contradiction. Wanting more government regulation of the border or guns, but also wanting fewer EPA requirements for food or DEI requirements isn't a contradiction or a gotcha, it's a valid expression of people's political desires. Similarly, wanting healthcare but not have addictive or unnecessary procedures or medicine pushed on you is totally acceptable. I reject the notion that it's just a matter of politics as a broad claim you've made. I concede there is a large amount of political finagling and ideology in many of these decisions (whether by doctors, congress, hospitals, the federal executive), but I also believe you could parse out 60-75% of policy as being harmful or helpful to individuals and have broad (over 75%) public agreement.
I have no idea what you're on about. I'm not claiming a contradiction or gotcha. I'm not claiming anything is invalid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link