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 -
To me, this seems backwards. For as much of a difference there is between our single celled ancestors and homo sapiens, the differences between them are not infinite. In fact, compared to infinite differences, the 2 might as well be identical, as hard to distinguish from each other as distinguishing one electron from another. And infinite malleability would require infinite time (or being able to do things in infinitely short amount of time). Not small beans like "until all usable energy in the universe is lost to entropy" - in comparison to infinite time, that might as well be a nanosecond. Otherwise, just from the simple math of a finite number of humans doing things in a finite amount of time, the malleability of humans can't be infinite.
If you're merely using hyperbolic language, then it's just a question of where one draws the line in terms of how malleable humans are. But then the question becomes more nuanced and hinges on the specifics, of course.
...
Sure. I think there are limits to the diversity mathematics can express given a finite universe or effectively finite universe given speed of light restrictions.
But like- I think we are like ants in a terrarium. We have explored a single drop in the ocean of possibilities. There are game theoretic considerations that will probably hold across all agents, but the things that are obviously bad for humans right now are not obviously universally bad in all possible situations.
I think if you want to argue that humans are not infinitely malleable "arbitrarily large is not infinity" is... technically correct. But of no use to the conservative.
I would expect them to go for "that's not human" instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link