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, by contrast, often find that men who sneer at "I feel..." statements and "So what I hear you saying..." acknowledgements are often the first to appreciate genuine listening to their actual feelings, and validation of their emotions as socially understandable. Respecting other people's feelings is an important bit of social glue.
Indeed, in contexts like The Motte, thinking about people's underlying emotions rather than taking their statements solely at face value is a valuable part of my skill set. Often, acknowledging people's feelings can actually be a really useful aid to getting them to step away from their statements and examine them factually without feeling like those underlying emotions themselves are about to be crushed underfoot.
I do not doubt that emotionally respectful conversation can be done badly. I do not doubt that it can be enforced in unproductive ways. But if you think that enforcement of detached manly emotionlessness is the solution then you are very wrong.
The problem to me is that, as much as it claims the opposite, the feminine style of communication seems to be just as often about weaponizing emotions as is it about validly acknowledging them (which I don't think men actually have that much of a problem with).
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, the point is well taken. I agree that there are clear contexts in which focalising empathetic norms in communication is helpful and serves as a social glue, as you say. The cases where that’s clearest to me, though, are ones involving genuinely close and mutually supportive relationships. What I do think is a bit pathological is when these same norms — helpful in intimate contexts — are translated to domains like Twitter or other kinds of social media where most people only have parasocial or pseudo-social relationships with each other. I largely approve of (literal or figurative) hugs, but dislike hugboxes.
Partly that’s because the forms of reassurance you get in online hugboxes are pretty unhelpful psychologically, insofar as they don’t come from someone who actually knows you and cares about you and is in a position to meaningfully validate you, but simply someone with your same political or identity-group values who’s been socialised to praise expressions of pain or victimhood or oppression that are framed in the right political vocabulary. These spaces typically strongly limit actual debate, and what debate actually does occur is often a form of “gotcha” based around identifying when someone is showing insufficient demonstration of compassion (e.g., “doesn’t your analysis marginalise the experiences of group X?”).
I genuinely think this kind of norm is corroding public online debate, but more to the point, I find it often intellectually insipid and emotionally ersatz. But that’s just online with relative strangers — in the real world (or in online communication with close friends or family) there’s obviously a space for primarily therapeutic rather than investigative or forensic communication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link