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 would echo @MathiasTRex's advice in never engaging in these kinds of discussion online. But I would also say that I think you misread the situation. People were upset after a mass shooting (hate crime?). They were venting and perhaps trying to solicit some sympathy/attention. Wading in with the "well, actually" doesn't really help anybody even if you are, indisputably, 100% correct. This is the kind of situation where more social intelligence and less rational intelligence helps.
I only offer this advice because I myself walk blindly into these snares all the time, and have to try really hard to bite my tongue and not impose Rational Logic™ on people's feelings
Surely it does help (if it's heeded at all) to the extent that the person's statement isn't totally untrue? If they're going to actually be worried, or act differently in the future, about lgbtq mass shootings, understanding it's not a meaningful risk could reduce that. Which benefits them because they don't take unnecessary action, waste time, avoid useful activity for no reason. I'd personally be annoyed if, e.g., the comments on reddit posts about murders where people said "OMG THIS IS SO SCARY" didn't have replies saying "well, ackshually, P(car crash|LGBT) = 1000 * P(mass shooting|LGBT), so there's nothing to worry about", because that's valuable information. And more generally, 'being scared after a reported violent event', and being upset/fear generally, is an ... adaptation that helps people avoid harm in the future, that's why that particular set of mechanisms evolved. Using that to be afraid in cases of actual harm is just better! "Feeling" does not mean "whenever something might upset someone, that means it shouldn't happen" - it refers to a bunch of contingent adaptations / tendencies with many different roles, and 'feelings' and 'rational logic' are deeply intertwined (i.e., the ability to infer that 'lgbt mass shooting' means 'i might die' is as 'logical' as anything else). That this particular response breaks a social norm isn't because "Rational Logic^{tm}" and feelings don't mix, it's just that ... the response breaks a specific social norm, and OP cares more about other consequences of the response than that social norm.
I think the middle path here is to wait to see if OP's friend is actually serious about not going out anymore or was just expressing their feelings in the moment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would agree if I'd received more generic insensitivity responses, but I specifically got "good ally tips" about not talking. Which makes me think less of the people responding that way even if I did misread the situation.
You committed a faux pas. That is to say, you violated community norms, but not enough to get actually ejected from the community.
The "good ally tips" are the community norms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link