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 -
A teacher lines students up to use the water fountain:
"Line up by reverse alphabetical order this time. ...Aaron, it's reverse alphabetical order, you should be at the back." "I've decided that I'm called William, actually."
What should the teacher do?
Again, "people are called William if they want to be called William" is likewise not a problem if and only if no action or statement ever depends on or is connected to this definition in any way. When we try to actually do things with this information, allowing the data to be completely arbitrary breaks whatever we try to use it for. We do not, in fact, generally allow people to arbitrarily change their own names; to the extent that we allow name changes, we do so through legible processes, because names are important in a lot of ways.
Allow it this once, but observe whether William actually lastingly goes by William in other social contexts, and/or if he switches back to Aaron when drinking order switches back again. Take appropriate disciplinary action if you get conclusive evidence he's doing it frivolously.
Now this is interesting.
My first instinct is to effectively say "Aaron, cut the shit. Back of the line." Given that he's never claimed to be William before, and there's a short-term reward for being William today, I disbelieve him with confidence.
And sure: If Aaron comes in the next day saying he's William, and for the next week, and for some unspecified time after, it does makes sense to call him William.
That actually happened, by the way. A young Englishman named Aaron started calling himself William. At first, everyone just kept calling him Aaron, but he stuck to it, and hardly anyone even remembers his original name. Ironically, he wound up believing that names don't matter after all, as demonstrated by his quote: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - Aaron Shakespeare
sorry
More options
Context Copy link
Your definition was "a William is someone who calls himself William". You made no mention previously of frivolity invalidating self-assigned Williamosity. You make no mention here of what separates frivolous self-designations from serious ones. You seem to think that changing the name back and forth to secure a position in the front of a line would be illegitimate, but you've offered no justification for why that particular arbitrary change is the lone illegitimate one, nor a list of what the other exceptions might be, much less a general method for discerning legitimate changes from illegitimate ones.
Would you agree that "people are called William if they want to be called William" appears to be a definition that doesn't actually work, given that it appears very easy to abuse without adding an unspecified number of additional caveats?
No. The present tense "calls" in "someone who calls himself" was, I thought, sufficient to imply "habitually calls himself"; to imply a measure of stability. If you really think this is ambiguous, we can add an adverb, whatever.
Is your position then that "genderfluid" people are full of shit?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link