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 favor approval voting. You vote to "approve" as many candidates as you want; the candidate with the most approving voters wins. Unlike RCV, there aren't situations where you win by being less popular, there are no spoiler effects, it is extremely simple, and you end up with centrist politicians instead of maximally divisive ones.
It’s my single-issue vote.
I will vote for any goddamn candidate who credibly supports approval or even ranked choice. I don’t care if it throws my vote away or if they’re otherwise detestable. I’ll advocate for others to do the same, too.
It hasn’t done any good yet.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure this is true, because voters are not incentivized to vote entirely honestly.
Ie, if the true global popularity of candidates goes A > B > C
and everyone knows it, then people who honestly approve A,B but prefer B > A > C have some incentive to not vote A, because if the numbers are close then artificially dropping A's apparent popularity gives B a better shot. And then in response people who prefer A > B > C might counter by not voting A. And then seeing this turmoil people who prefer C might fail to vote A,B even if they do approve of them, because this gives C a chance to shoot up.
But the spoiler effects are certainly more limited, this issue only comes up when comparing multiple similar candidates that are simultaneously approved by individuals and close to each other in the rankings. It would do a better job of having people be able to support third party candidates and their true preferences (since you always want to include your actual favorite) and introduce more centrists while still hedging their bets on the lesser-of-two-evils candidate most likely to prevent the evil villain on the other side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link