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 is certainly how I understood his argument.
For my part, I think (and thought at the time) that his assessment of the chance of death is entirely reasonable. I can also readily agree that the label of "Lynch Mob" is questionable unless the clear intent of the mob is murder, with the proviso that I have absolutely zero expectation or belief that this distinction will be applied in a principled fashion anywhere, ever. I also agree that Trace's core argument is "Rittenhouse probably wasn't going to die, so self-defense is inappropriate".
I find it insurmountably difficult to believe Trace or anyone supporting him would accept members of their ingroup receiving a compulsory invitation to a "skateboard fight" that the police simply stand aside for. I find it insurmountably difficult to believe Trace or anyone supporting him would accept access to public spaces and the exercise of their constitutional rights being treated as consent to a "skateboard fight" that the police simply stand aside for.
I also do not believe that Trace is a liar, nor do I believe that he's too stupid to understand the obvious implications of his argument. I notice I am confused.
My conclusion is that Shiri's Scissor is in fact real.
That passage is a reasonably accurate description of my subjective experience of that period generally and my argument with Trace in particular.
At the end of the day, the part that confuses me the most is how he can believe that his preferred strategy is actually going to work. I, personally, will never trust or cooperate with him ever again. I will never stop holding his position against him so long as he holds it, and I will use it as an example of why other people should not trust or cooperate with him or anyone like him ever again. More generally, he has joined Ozzy and Zunger as prime examples of why mistake theory dooms us in the long-term: even with the best intentions, even under the best possible conditions, values incoherence is simply unsurvivable.
There are many frustrating parts here, but one of the notable ones is that people seem to read the above as an expression of personal animosity; as in, I dislike Trace as a person, and so I am framing that dislike as opposition to his policy positions. In fact, it is the exact opposite; as with Kulak, I quite enjoy debating with him and respect his intellect a great deal. But also like Kulak, he advances policies incompatible with peaceful coexistence.
The difference, of course, is that Trace's proscriptions were actually implemented.
More options
Context Copy link