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 -
It's because you are adding elements to the hypothetical, but you only seem to notice when other people do that. There is no clicking in the original hypothetical. There are no three year olds, no twitter even. That's my point, you are asking for evidence for a nonsense hypothetical because you see the scenario happening one way and can't grasp that those red pillers are conceptualising it in a completely different way. And so when you grill each other on the specifics it's like you aren't even talking about the same thing, and you end up asking them for things that don't even factor into their version of the hypothetical.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't meant as a dig - a lot of those red pillers are doing the same to you. It's a really fantastically put together scissor statement, pitting two moral frameworks against each other in a way that ensures the opposition looks evil. The only reason I think I didn't get caught in it is because I have such low regard for anything twitter that I couldn't fully embrace the hypothetical and remained a level removed at all times.
I genuinely believe kids are part of the original hypothetical. As far as things others are adding, those are just reframings of the question, which are interesting but I think have different results simply due to the wording.
I was wrong when I said that people would click on the wrong option. The original hypothetical, though, is that everyone who participates in the poll gets the choice, and I genuinely think this group is likely to include some children.
The presence of children at all doesn't matter that much to me though. I'm just quite confident some innocent people will choose blue for one reason or another. Children are an easy way to argue this, but there are plenty of others. I'd rest easy if I could just stop the endless repeating of "well if everyone picks red nobody will die."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link