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 -
Agreed. This is the basis for Nominal Group Technique in which decisions are made by people writing down their ideas and then having them read anonymously.
A person who is charismastic, quick-witted, or intimidating can win a debate even if their ideas are poor. Winning debates in real life is mostly just about busting the frame anyway. That's why political candidates never actual answer the questions given to them, but just grandstand. And it's why they go over their time to deprive their opponents the chance to grandstand.
Imagine Ben Shapiro vs. Scott Alexander. Ben would destroy Scott in a debate, but Scott is the far better thinker. Heck, even Donald Trump could probably "beat" Scott in a debate.
I dont get people's obsession with Ben Shapiro. He's a savage culture warrior for sure, but claiming he's dumb is just kinda outright insane. He's clearly brilliant in his own sort of way. And I think his performance in a debate with Scott, setting aside his machine gun style, would highly depend on the topic. Some of Scott's positions are more well reasoned than others. Some of Ben's are more or less.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but why have them debate when you saw how good Scott's questions for the 2016 candidates were? I want to hear Bush address whether Barbara Bush was a genius or if there were many better candidates than him.
More options
Context Copy link
Donald Trump would steamroll Ben Shapiro in a debate with no contest. Charisma and presence matter a lot more when it comes to debates than written essays, (I'd honestly rather read an essay by Trump than Shapiro to be honest), and Trump is far better at that than Ben Shapiro could ever be.
More options
Context Copy link
This would really depend on the moderation style. It's like with interviewing, there are interviewers whose style is to keep the guest talking, so they lob softball questions when the guest starts to run dry. There are interviewers whose style is about putting the guest on the spot, so they keep cycling back to the same question if the guest is evasive.
If the debate was led by a hardball moderator, busting the frame would no longer be a winning tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link