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 -
The purpose of academic feminism is to advance the position of women as defined by leftists elites. As feminists might say, you are implicitly accepting a highly male autistic notion of truth that you think can exist outside of existing power dynamics, and even if we grant that everything you say is "true" this truth is an information hazard (feminists wouldn't use this exact term) whose promoting will do far more harm than good. From my own viewpoint, while yes the last sentence makes feminism look bad to rationalists, the feminists are acting as normal humans do in avoiding promoting beliefs that help their near enemies and cut against their cherished beliefs.
I agree that that is the case, but it's problematic given that academic feminsts are ostensibly the experts on this. Whether they should or should not be relied upon as authorities, they are. and the entire field being set up to prove ideological points, and I do believe that is the case, is problematic because it necessarily indicates that they are designed to provide one side of things, even though they are regarded as having a descriptive focus which seeks to just explain things as they are. This is further problematic because who in academia is providing the counterpoint? how are we supposed to get the whole picture.
It's things like this that provide strength to conservative accusations that academia is biased to the left to the point that it cannot be entirely trusted, which lends itself pretty easily to the distrust of all institutions that characterizes the right. It's problematic that the people we rely on to explain certain parts of existence to us get into their field in the first place because they have adopted a stance, and spend their entire career trying to prove it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link