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 admitted that winning is the key thing and we are clearly not winning. The kind of 'fairness' I was talking about is lesser to winning.
I was thinking about some kind of right-to-rule mechanism but couldn't quite articulate it. The First Foundation had a better understanding of physics than the fringes who struggled maintaining their atomics, they were better organized than the declining Empire on Trantor. That gave them legitimacy since they were more efficient in using external resources, that's where they got their power from. Because of that strength, they could run society better. They were fairly happy and prosperous, everyone else was declining. The Mule wasn't better at using external resources, he had the power without the legitimacy. If he showed up in Ancient Egypt he could only rule Ancient Egypt, he couldn't improve it significantly. If the Foundation arrived in Ancient Egypt, they could. And the Mule was worsening the Foundation during his brief rule I think, he crushed their creative spirit with his mind control.
That's only a fiction but it captures what I'm trying to say. Winning is the most important thing, but it is not everything. Winning through actual superior strength, through a more advanced understanding of the universe is better than winning because of your wordcel skills and the tolerance of your victims.
Being punctual, precise, professional, rational, hard-working and so on are closer to the universal norms of efficiency. Just because Katz and co pull some mental judo trick that makes good things unfashionable, it does not follow that they're actually worse. There's not some kind of cultural relativism where all values are equal. Some actually do work and others fail. Even if the good values have dysfunctional predators, they're still good and they still work. Maybe all we needed was the ability to ignore all these naysayers and whiners, the ability to say 'compelling argument, now face the wall'. We were 95-99% right, just missing the error-protection code that prevents these cancers emerging.
More options
Context Copy link