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 -
One of the worst things about having a very unpopular worldview that I have to hide from nearly everybody I know is that these days I have basically no opportunities for serious face-to-face synchronous argument/conversation about controversial issues. I used to be very good at debate-style argumentation, but I definitely feel like that skill has atrophied from disuse. Even the people with whom I do discuss serious issues are the ones who are largely in agreement with me about the big picture - at least, in enough agreement that I can reliably trust them not to want to harm me because of my views - so it’s not useful for practicing the art of arguing well.
I do agree with some commentators who have pushed back against your thesis; debate-style argument genuinely is more susceptible to emotional manipulation, the leveraging of charisma, and various cynical derailing tactics. Especially when an audience is involved, the incentive toward demagoguery and cheap tactics can be profound, and that’s to say nothing of the opportunity it presents for the mining of unflattering soundbites that can be decontextualized and then weaponized. It’s an artform that rewards glibness.
Still, I think you’re dead-on about the ways in which, when done correctly, it can allow interlocutors to really strike at the heart of disagreements, without all of the careful rhetorical defenses that the written form allows one to cultivate. It’s also just fun and invigorating, and is a great opportunity to hone one’s thinking and exercise one’s brain.
I’ve considered reaching out to you about appearing on The Bailey, but I would probably want to discuss something slightly less inflammatory than the topic(s) I’m most closely associated with - not only because you’ve already had a (frankly, pretty poor quality, I’m sorry to say) episode about race/identity, but also because I’m still so freaked-out about op-sec - and I’ve struggled to think of another topic where I feel like I could really be a more valuable and interesting contributor than someone else you could talk to instead. I’ll mull it over some more!
AI has vastly expanded the tricks we could use to maintain your anonymity. We can make you sound like Drake if you really wanted to!
Imagine the risk to poor Champagne Papi’s career if someone were to listen to the episode and think it’s really him expressing such views! I couldn’t bear to get a fellow former theatre kid cancelled like that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly my feeling as well. I know for a fact that I used to be extremely persuasive, and for better or for worse had a reputation for "standing on a soapbox". Late night conversations in high school and college were full of real discussion where people walked away either convinced or more educated, not pissed off beyond repair.
Now the absolute best-case scenario is I find myself in a 6-on-1 debate after I've already had 3 whiskeys and am compelled to respond to some hot-take that's too stupid to let slide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link