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 -
If they hold on to that, and the admin holds too and cuts them off, I think it's a win. I loathe current Harvard dominating ideology, but I support the principle that in a free country, which America still one day may become, people are free to hold any ideology, even extremely loathsome, as long as it does not involve infringing other's rights. Taking my money to do stuff that is loathsome to me comes pretty close, in my opinion, to infringing my rights, but if Harvard stops taking tax money (or at least takes them in no other sense than a cab driver transporting a government official takes the tax money) then I'd be ok with such setup. Secretly, in my heart, I'd desire for them to disappear in the flames of Hell, but I realize that the reality can't be so because everybody has their own desires and they are contradictory and the way to have a society is to have some desires moderated by the existence of others. The tricky part is how to ensure they don't just keep their ideology and resume taking my money once Trump is gone.
In the context of the woke academia, "viewpoint diversity" is largely bullshit. The premise of the wokism is that genetical diversity somehow magically generates viewpoint diversity (as long as there aren't too many people of European descent because somehow they are all defective in this way) and that is supremely beneficial. Of course, nobody even bothers to support this claim because this is an axiom, and nobody even bothers to check there's an actual viewpoint diversity because nobody in fact wants it. This requirement just looks like calling the bluff on it - "ah, you love diversity? OK, let's measure you on that". Of course they'd refuse since neither they can measure it nor they ever wanted to.
More options
Context Copy link