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'm not sure if responding to these complaints was the goal of your post:
But if so, you haven't really addressed it aside from:
We've been picking up trash for a century, and we probably haven't had a proper famine in the west in about the same timeframe. Unless you're using the word civilization to contain an unarticulated positive vision/will to power, both of those examples conjure images of maintaining a status quo/stagnation rather than progress. Would you like to elaborate on that point?
I'm not sure if this will come across as "elaboration" or "reiteration" but I think that one of the core differences/disputes/sources of inferential distance comes from a disagreement over just how difficult and fundamental certain sorts of tasks are. You are correct in observing that we haven't had a proper famine in the west in close to a century. The difference is in what conclusions we draw from this fact. Are famines truly a thing of the past, or have we just been lucky?
The idea I'm gesturing towards is something like the old XKCD comic about "tasks", where in I would argue that many of the problems we consider "simple" are in fact "the hard part", and that many (perhaps even the majority of) people today take them for granted because they've never known anything else.
Edit to Elaborate: In case it wasn't clear, my claim is that coming up with grand theories and sophisticated parliamentary systems is the civilizational equivalent of figuring out if a picture was taken in a national park. Where as making sure that that grocery store shelves get stocked and keeping people from lynching each other is the equivalent of figuring out if the picture was of a bird.
To offer a concurrence: The Constitution observably worked quite well for a long time. Did it work well because it was a good ruleset regardless of the people it governed, or did it work well because the values and perspectives of the people it governed made its job relatively easy? I was raised to believe the former, that our system worked well because it was an excellent system. Only, it's not working so well now, and none of the formal rules have actually changed. So if it's all down to the rules as written, why should outcomes be different for one set of people than for another?
Writing a constitution or imagining a system of government is easy. Getting people to actually implement it properly and live in peace under it is very, very hard, even when the plan is as simple as "just please follow the rules, goddammit."
I feel like this is an underappreciated insight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link