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 -
You are making the classic mistake of presenting the status quo as the undesirable alternative to the status quo.
Notably, bin Ladin did come from the Global South, which was/is already fertile soil for various radical cultists, however you decide to define the term. Moreover, this occurs despite the status quo already being the funding line, as opposed to the supposed consequence of not funding.
The mistake in the framing is presenting the lack of preferred policy as a difference in nature, as opposed to a difference of degrees. This creates a discrediting effect- 'why should we keep paying for the thing we'll get regardless of if we pay'- rather than a cautionary effect 'things will be worse if we don't pay.'
The issue/weakness of the later, of course, is that an argument of efficacy has to prove it's efficacy, and that has the burden of being coupled with what's being paid for in practice and not just in objective. Like, 'USAID is spending money on life-saving things... but does so by also paying for gay operas.'
You can like opera. You can approve of gay operas even. But a medical cause that is spending on gay operas is not a compelling medical cause, even if people would be- in theory- willing to support medical causes.
(This is a classic weakness of government agencies that lose their sense of purpose / mission and get scope-creeped into fields outside their focus. The consequence of losing public legitimacy and political support isn't losing the scope-creept stuff, but also the efforts that were the nominal original focus.)
More options
Context Copy link