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 am unsure whether the following qualifies as a steelman, but I think it may be an actual explanation some non-trivial percentage of the time.
Social signaling--but specifically, signaling a willingness to acquiesce to someone else's self-conception as the primary driver of that person's social identity. Note that neopronouns serve this purpose even better than any flavor of standard pronoun, because they are individual. If I use your specially-chosen pronouns to refer to you, that is a show of deference to you, individually. This deference operates as a filter--if I am willing to defer in this manner, I am more likely to be aligned with you politically, think of you as an ally, and--importantly--not harm you.
In reality, I think this rationale is not as strong as those who may hold it hope, because there are many environments where this flavor of pronoun use is enforced by social coercion, which undermines the accuracy of the signal. Someone may bow to the coercion while seething internally, and the obvious target of his ire is the pronoun-person, who may not be the person driving the enforcement! ("Trans activists" are trans themselves sometimes, but quite often not.)
This dynamic is sort of the inverse of "shit-testing," since the desired outcome is reversed, though both are social probes.
More options
Context Copy link