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 was thinking more of creating your own clan of sorts based on moral criteria. And generally cooperating when the proportion of defectors is less clear/more favourable than usual.
Oh, that's how they can start too... First protecting the garden of idealism, then naked clannish power struggle. The assabiyah route is inherently treacherous.
But ofc this is a natural idea. This, or more realistically moving to the West.
Yeah I didn't say I've thought this through, could be islam started as such a clan, and I hate it. I don't see why the clan would have to keep defecting outside when outside is cooperating, though. Other religions manage it, my own flavour of goldenrule-utilitarian-cooperate-thing manages it.
To be clear, I do not believe that Islam started in this way, in a way that matters, or that it proceeds this way. I think Arabs/Bedouins have been clannish since prehistory, in comparison with modern Europeans, but also Persians, Anatolians and other groups they've contacted; and they make such a big deal out of Islam and literal adherence to its precepts precisely because it's their best way to cope with their impulses, the rigid platform to maintain a semblance of a supraclannish high-trust society, which at some points in history worked rather well. Arabs dole out antisocial punishment despite Islam. Without Islam or another comparable totalizing faith they degenerate into pure defectbots who cannot be trusted to not backstab anyone outside of their small cliques and family groups, if even that.
What I was talking about is that if someone in that environment like zinker, who cerebrally recognizes the advantage of high-trust communities, begins to cooperate within a small group of like-minded people and maintain a honest, merit-based system in their limited domain of control (which seemed to be what you propose with your «in some circles», though I might have jumped to conclusions and you were still going on with the self-sacrificing do-gooder bullshit for the benefit of the broader society), there's a high chance that this degenerates into a yet another Machiavellian «clan» in a few iterations, when newcomers internalize only the help-allies-sink-strangers principle, and not the abstract project of getting to everyone-helps-everyone-else equilibrium.
That's a correct reading of my comment, although I take exception to 'self sacrificing do-gooder bullshit' - it's just a combination of "cerebrally recognizing the advantage of high-trust communities", and living in one. In an ideal high-trust society which punishes defectors, blind cooperation is the rational machiavellian way.
On whether islam helps or harms, the level of cooperation is terrible even within their garden. How low can they get in their natural state, really? I find it more plausible that islam enshrines terrible habits (muhammad was a deceiver, and so is his god, the religion comes down hard on the wrong side of the Euthyphro dilemma, etc) .
Anyway in defectbotland the temporary garden could work. Do you have any (other) examples of corruption to systematic outside-defection occuring?
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