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 -
That was the vibe in the 90s if you were young, sure. The boomers, in my recollection, spent a fair amount of time during that period being suspicious of the whole tech book - not only in the sense of predicting disappointments and bubbles (including the ones that actually happened) but seeing the free online expression etc. as a path of dangers for their kids, filled with drugs and child porn and extremists trying to recruit them. (Quite as many of those who were kids in the 90s now see the Internet for their kids, of course). And the discussions about the dangers of corporate control and monopolization are nothing new either, or have people already forgotten the Microsoft antitrust saga?
I'm sure there were some people who were suspicious, but for many years, they just lost. Some folks embody the prevailing perspective in folks like Ira Magaziner (a few examples). It resulted in policies and even laws like Section 230. It was chipped away at in many ways, some good recounting here. It really was a thing, with hopes of both domestic and foreign benefits; Peter Singer said:
Lots of people, even boomers like Magaziner (born one year after Donald Trump), thought it was a panacea that could basically not be touched.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link