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 -
What bloodless cowardice! You won't even risk yourself in a hypothetical. And yes, yes, it's very easy to proclaim bold words about though the heavens fall... when they'll be falling on someone else.
Those lines SHOULD NOT BE CROSSED. What lines? Well, a google search and CNN indicate that it's "the rooms are spartan" and "the machismo-fueled murderous warlords are subjected to minor submission displays". Your unbounded concern for their heads being shaved is truly... something.
Consider that your first rejection dismissed. For the second, you are responsible for the outcomes of your actions - including advocacy. If you advocate for a policy, you bear some moral burden for it's results. And you're, by revealed preference, not willing to even pretend to bet your life that your actions to comfort the guilty won't fall ruinously on the innocent.
I want you to take sixty actual seconds and think about your life. Have you ever been punched in the face? Ever feared for your life by the actions of another? Known serious, frightening Maslow-bottom want? Have you ever actually been face-to-face with someone willing and able to deliver grievous harm? I implore you to consider the possibility that you're actually one of the most coddled, protected and privileged creatures that has ever existed on the face of this earth. Consider that employing your ideals, stringent and untethered even by the standards of the safest and most secure society ever built, may not actually be directly applicable to a different society that was subject to widespread warring-bands raider-ism within the last Macbook development cycle.
It was very easy for Sir Terry to hold such lofty ideals in the unsurpassed safety of post-war Britain. Now that country intimidates and jails people for tweets.
Not when the hypothetical is 'you face execution for your political opinions.' If the hypothetical were 'you live in San Salvador and face the same risk as everyone else' or 'you meet me on the field of honour at dawn', one might be able to justify arguing whether it is unreasonable to refuse such a risk.
Point of order, but the hypothetical was "you have actual skin in the game, and face the risk you're so righteously demanding El Salvadoran citizens endure". After all, if your policy advocacy doesn't result in more El Salvadorans being murdered, then there's no risk to you at all!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link