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 -
Eh, this is debatable. I've met more than a few people who've held onto positions they've uncritically followed the footsteps of, until their first time someone came along and explicitly challenged their beliefs. I'd agree however, that the odds aren't good, considering the context, heh.
I actually do agree it's theoretically possible to logic someone out of a non-logic'd position, but it happens so seldomly for meatspace acquaintances and relationships that the probability can be lossily rounded to zero.
One possible counter-example of logic'ing people out of a non-logical position I thought of while I was writing that comment was the Pitbull Question (PQ), where it appears that the wrong-thinkers have been winning, even on Reddit. However, this was not accomplished by "Despite being 6% of the dog population, pitbulls commit 66% of all fatal attacks"-posting but rather spreading awareness, news articles, and videos of pitbull attacks, especially where the victims were sympathetic, like women and children. Anecdoting people out of a non-logical position.
It is not a coincidence that the PublicFreakout and ActualPublicFreakout-adjacent subreddits have strict rules against Noticing.
I agree with this.
As I already mentioned, I'm not at all that optimistic about the plausibility of most people changing their beliefs in light of a logical challenge to it. The overwhelming majority of people's beliefs are not arrived via logical deduction or consideration. Then again, that also includes people like us. I'd put to you a challenge I've tried subjecting myself to in the past. Try to formalize as many beliefs that you hold, consisting of premises that someone else should believe, on their face. I'd contend you couldn't do it. I couldn't, for most of my beliefs. As big of a believer as I am in logic and mathematics and hard empirical evidence, if those were the only beliefs I'd be willing to act on, I would be such a nerd. I'd never be able to interact with another human being. Not that I'm all that successful on that front, in the first place.
I think for most people, ignorance and impulse overpower ideology. I fully agree with the problem of Noticing. That's the biggest problem I've had, all across platforms like Reddit. Any ideology that lacks an update mechanism is going to force you to dig in your heels, and into highly uncomfortable positions, that have you defend the most insane looking ideas. But I don't think that's where the problem of Noticing stems from. People have their tribal identities and intellectually primitive beliefs before an ideological artifice begins to appear in the mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link