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 think mistake theory more specifically applies to current progressives and the social left, whereas conflict theory generally applies more to conservatives and the right. In reality, both exist. I believe conservatives are more correct in their approach to the inescapable reality that conflict is inevitable. Even the social left with their utopia-seeking plans often concede that they will need to get through some sort of conflict before they can implement their utopia. With that said, I am not a huge fan of the right wing segment that seems to happily embrace conflict.
Overall, it is a mixture of the theories. Conflict isn’t the result of some grand evil plan, but a natural consequence of competing interests, resources, and shifting circumstances. It is unavoidable. Progressives really buy into the idea that they get a get out of moral jail free card if their intentions are good, even if their ideas create problems. Conservatives, on the other hand, largely accept the unavoidable and attempt to address issues in a realistic, sometimes amoral way that does not interface well into the liberal-progressive framework that is deeply programmed into most of us Westerners. You cannot win rhetorically as a conservative once you start admitting what harsh reality needs to be done to fix problems. The only way to win as a conservative currently is to let the bad ideas of the left reach their logical conclusions, then present those receipts to the public after the damage has been done.
Mistake theory definitely explains the left's drawbacks in the current era, and I think it greatly affected the 2024 election.
This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If two conflict-theorists disagree, there will be conflict. It's very easy to assume the other side is full of shit and acting in bad faith, and acting as if they are gives you an advantage in the conflict that you are helping to create.
If two mistake-theorists disagree, maybe there will be conflict, maybe there won't, partially depending on how committed they are to mistake theory. It's very hard to put in the effort to find the often-very-nuanced sources of error in your two world models, and assuming the other side is putting in that effort in good faith when they're not puts you at a disadvantage if they end up starting a conflict.
Both conflict theory and mistake theory bring advantages and disadvantages, largely depending on what the other side chooses to do. Any group needs people with both approaches. The hard part is deciding who to listen to when so you win inevitable conflicts but don't create unnecessary conflicts. There's lessons from game theory there, but everything from above also applies to this decision. Conflict theorists get the advantage when they create the conflict, so they will create it, as dutiful servants to Moloch.
I think you are correct, but as I said I think conflict is inevitable whether the sides prophesize about it or not. The extent and magnitude of conflict can be mitigated but it cannot be avoided. I don't want to project any sort of tough guy attitude, or the idea that people should engage in conflict. I also don't want to promote any sort of paranoid conflict theory. I just believe that circumstances will eventually dictate that conflict happens, even if no one actively wants it.
I am completely on board with mitigation, along with more people embracing a mistake-theorist lean over the conflict theory lean. I just have a fundamental belief that some of what occurs, even conflict, is a matter of circumstance and our nature which are simply baked into reality. It seems to me that the dominant Western policy mindset is heavily saturated with mistake-theory thinking, which ironically has created an environment that’s actually more prone to conflict. Some of these left-leaning policies and ideas (particularly the social ones) are driven by utopian assumptions that ignore structural realities. The effect that has had on our institutions and social cohesion have become pretty evident in my opinion.
It’s not the best analogy, but I always think of it: When shit was hitting the fan in 2020 people made a run for bulk items, especially toilet paper. It was absurd to watch people panic buy toilet paper of all things, but it didn’t matter how rational or calm any individual person was. Once enough people started stockpiling the shelves were empty and at that point even the most reasonable, community-minded person had to join in if they wanted to avoid being left without.
The point I’m trying to make is that some conflicts work the same way. You can personally favor cooperation, good faith, and compromise but once a critical mass of people (on either side) start treating the situation as a conflict, you’re pulled into that dynamic whether you want to be or not.
You don’t have to want conflict, or even believe in conflict theory, for conflict to find you. It’s not always a prophecy sometimes it’s just how cascading events play out when people act in self-interest under uncertainty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link