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 original choice was "pick red or blue". Now if it was an experiment about "if we all rush outside we have a good chance of saving the babies from the wolves because there's safety in numbers", then yeah I'd pick "rush outside". But in the original I'm picking "red pill" because there are no wolves, everyone smart enough to be able to read this poll doesn't need saving from themselves by the smarter set, and it's not a question of harming others to save yourself. If you pick red, and you pick red, and everyone in this line picks red, then all live. If you pick blue and you pick blue but the next six people pick red, you die. And that's down to your decision.
The blue versus red choice is metaphorically "do you want to be shoved out the window of a twenty storey building, or do you want to stand in the middle of the room well away from it?" What person is going to go "yes, please shove me out a window"? 'OH but if they're really stupid they will'. Well, if they're that stupid, why are they reading that particular Twitter then?
'Unless enough people pick blue, we're going to shove you out a window, but if you pick red, that won't happen' - how is this a difficult choice? By picking blue, now you're introducing the element of "uh-oh, one person picked blue, we need a lot more people to pick blue now" and nobody knows how many people are there or who picked blue. That's the problem: if there are fifty thousand people and I know that 24,999 picked blue, then clearly I must pick blue to save them. But I don't know that, so why am I immoral for picking red, if there's just as good a chance that the other 49,999 people before me picked red?
Must I repeat myself? Reframe the question and the answer changes, as you well know.
You're not picking blue for yourself, you're picking for everyone similar to you. In other words everyone with the same reasoning process. People with different reasoning processes may come to different conclusions. So the odds that your reasoning process tips the scales is far greater than the odds that everyone with different reasoning processes picks red.
Which is what the Blues are doing in order to come out ahead as the Good Guys. Toddlers in blenders and who knows what-all, when the original was simply "pick the red or pick the blue".
You'd have more ground to stand on here if you hadn't just done exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing and pretended you had a point.
And I don't think things like toddlers participating is reframing the question. It's virtually guaranteed that at least one will, under the original framing of the question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link