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 -
It absolutely is! I'll believe you that you think it's related, if you can link me to a comment where you argue, using that logic, in favor of a point you disagree with.
That doesn't mean you get to derail any conversation with "it's all relative, man".
If I comment on something you said, pointing out that it is overly broad and that it applies to any attempt to force preferences, and indeed that many of your preferences are forced right now, and then you say yes that is what you were doing, trying to force preferences, then logically those things are related. So I don't have to prove anything from any prior comment. Everything needed to determine if I am correct or not is contained in this chain. It's not really relevant whether you believe I believe those things are related or not. That is entirely up to you.
Having said that, it doesn't matter whether I think you are correct not, just that the justification for your position is weak. Don't mistake me criticizing your logic for the fact I disagree with your position. Your statement was I think false. People's rights to do X does not in fact end when you are forced to do Y. Maybe it should end there, but it clearly doesn't (which you yourself seem to admit). Given that, using it as an argument makes your position weaker as it is easily rebutted. I am not saying change your position, I am saying make a better argument that fits with how things actually work.
You can feel free to take my word that I am up front or not. And if you feel I am derailing the conversation, you do not have to respond. No harm, no foul on my end at least.
No, i said I'm trying to persuade people that a preference isn't worth forcing.
Yup, like I said, I'm going to need some evidence to accept that you are.
A distinction with no difference. If I am trying to persuade people calling Doctors Dr is a preference not worth forcing, then i am practically going to have to persuade them to shame those who do prefer to use Dr and who are pushing for that. Thats part of how a social convention becomes one. By making it judged positively if you do it and judged negatively if you do not.
You just have to look at how well, "hate the sin not the sinner" worked. In general it leads to hating the sinner by proxy. An attempt to set a social norm that people do not have to say Dr, will lead to people who do say Dr to be judged.
And if you require proof of good faith, I think you may have misjudged the purpose of the space. My arguments are at face value and i assume yours are as well. Otherwise whats the point of even being here?
If A == !A then it's not that your argument is not relevant, it's meaningless.
No I don't. Most arguments here happen with shaming. In fact, shaming is against the rules.
Even though waging the culture war is against the rules, people still do it. Last I checked it was still ok to point out someone is doing it, and I think you are doing it here.
Social norms in the real world involve shaming, here we try to avoid that you are correct. But we are discussing how general people act not how Motteizens act. We are not generally "normies" after all.
You yourself admitted you were trying to influence norms rather than simply making an argument, so how me calling you out for that is culture warring i do not know. I am saying not to do that.
But I don't want to impose a social norm. Also, the more I think about it, the more I think you're just plain wrong. Some of them do, some of them don't.
Trying to persuade someone by making an argument, is not culture war.
Selectively applying a meta argument to only one side of the conversation, when it fits both equally well, is.
You said: "Yes, and I'm in the process of persuading society that there should be no consequences for this particular thing, Do you mind?"
You are indeed trying to impose a social norm. A social norm against doing something is still a social norm after all.
You also said: "Your right to believe you're a cat ends at my right to not be forced to say "heeereee kitty, kitty, kitty!" when I see you. This applies to all other identities. Muslims don't have to recognize me as a Muslim, the Japanase don't have to recognize me as a Japanaese, etc."
But then as you point out yourself, you are actually trying to influence people. Using your own analogy, you are trying to convince Muslims that they do not have to recognize someone as Muslim. Even though you recognize that your statement about rights is false as you recognize the truth is that you have to persuade society to grant you those rights, You again: "Yes, and I'm in the process of persuading society.." using statements you know to be false in order to persuade people is a textbook culture war tactic, and generally there is nothing wrong with that. It's a time honoured political and rhetorical technique. When I worked in politics I did it myself plenty of times. In the service of a goal you believe in I don't even think it is morally wrong.
But here in this space we are supposed to avoid doing that. And I see a lot of signs that we are getting worse at avoiding that. Just to be clear, I don't think people should be forced to use pronouns or cat names or whatever. I don't want to try to persuade you to change your position. I want to try and preserve the norm here that we do our very best to not use those techniques on each other, so that we can discuss not wage.
Persuading people that there's no good reason to shame others for not doing something is not "imposing a social norm" under any reasonable definition of "imposing" or "social norm"
Sure, I think I have a better argument then others do, and I'm trying to show that. On the flip side, I'm also trying to expose it to scrutiny,
Stop. I don't. I recognize your argument as technically correct, in the "do words even mean anything" sense. I do not think your argument is in any way meaningful.
No, I'm pretty sure we're allowed to make arguments. If you disagree, feel free to report me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link