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 -
Rule of thumb: if something only affects consenting adults, it is no business of mine.
(Sidenote: my actual internal rule of thumb is a little more subtle than this, including the self-referential social contract definition to attempt to address the paradox of tolerance. Not relevant in this particular situation.)
Elaborating on these cases:
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[n.b. said rule of thumb does not apply about demands to affect those who are not consenting adults]
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[Under the assumption that this] affects only a consenting adult: is no business of mine.
[n.b. said rule of thumb does not apply about demands to affect those who are not consenting adults]
Depends on what precisely is meant by this.
If this means 'private chats between consenting adults refer to said person by the moniker Alice', this affects only consenting adults, and as such is no business of mine.
If this means 'publicly wishes to be known by the moniker Alice', this is on the borderline of said rule of thumb. I tend to lean towards saying this rule of thumb does not apply; I can see arguments either way and so tend to err on the side of stating this is no business of mine regardless.
If this means 'demands to be known only by the moniker Alice', this affects those who are not consenting adults, and as such said rule of thumb does not apply.
This affects those who are not consenting adults, and as such said rule of thumb does not apply.
N.B. Do not conflate 'said rule of thumb does not apply' with ''should not be allowed'.
N.B. Do not conflate 'is no business of mine' with 'is endorsed'.
N.B. Do not conflate 'do not conflate A and B' with 'A implies not B'
N.B. In general, do not conflate A implies B with !A implies !B.
N.B. In general, do not conflate A implies B with B implies A.
I'm curious: what portion of the above axiom and implications thereof do you not believe could be serious, and why?
More options
Context Copy link