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 -
But if you can communicate, wouldn’t you communicate “pick red; if we al pick red we all live!”
absolutely not. blue is the obvious one because if anyone errs, they die if everyone picks red and they pick blue, but someone erring with picking red doesn't cause a negative effect in blueworld.
the Lizardman Constant of people (+ some others who have genuine mental issues or are very young) don't die if everyone picks blue
If you run a “pick red” campaign, the equilibrium is self-reinforcing. There is no reason for anyone to “defect” to blue. It would be obviously a stupid decision.
If you run a “pick blue” campaign, how would you enforce that? How would you know it’s working? There is an obvious advantage to defecting. How much fear would you have awaiting the results? Do you have any beloved family members you secretly hope pick red just for the extra safety?
Roko is right, seeing people continue in their blue delusion is blackpilling. It’s like watching someone who is unable to understand the Monty Hall problem even after having it explained to them multiple times.
at 100% cooperation between all parties, there is no difference between blue and red. chug them both if you want and wash it down with a chaser.
I think it is a given that some people will either:
if any of these are the case, it is almost certain for there not be 100% coordination to pick one or the other. it is not only probable, but imo extremely likely for someone to pick blue based on the last 2 or more uncommonly the first 4. therefore, untold numbers will die if red wins. you don't need to be unintelligent for the first to occur (even highly intelligent people make mistakes). therefore, we want to reduce the number who die. and the only way to do that is to get 50%+1 to pick blue.
it is much more attainable for 50%+1 to do something than for 100% to do something. and so, we should be focusing all of our effort on getting 50%+1 to do something by encouraging everyone to do something, because 50%+1 blue or 65% blue or 84.25% blue or 100% blue has the same outcome as 100% red, but the inverse is not true.
are you sure all of the people you care about will pick red? would you bet their life on it?
More options
Context Copy link
The original question does not assume campaigning. How many beloved family members will you be afraid for as you sit in safety having picked red?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, if I can communicate, I will communicate that we should all pick blue and then everyone will live.
As explained above, this requires trust in strangers where the punishment for breaking trust differs on which agreement is made. If the agreement is “we all pick red” the agreement breaker suffers. If the agreement is “we all pick blue” then the agreement keeper suffers.
Thus, it seems more logical to explain this and get everyone to vote red.
But I do not want the "agreement breaker" to suffer in the red pact world, precisely because the breach obviously doesn't benefit them and doesn't harm me, realistically it could only happen by mistake or insanity.
If I can be confident that a pact works (50%+ keep it), I want the pact to be blue. If I can't, I'll pick red whatever the actual agreement was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link