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 a deceptively interesting hypothetical.
(I'm assuming this is a "no communication" scenario)
My initial feel was "Pick Red, obviously".
But then I remembered, my sister thinks that her husband is colorblind. (He denies this!). So that plants a seed of doubt, so it's possible that she would pick blue, to save him, just in case he accidentally picks blue. And then, my brother-in-law knows that his wife thinks that he is colorblind. So he would know that she would likely vote blue to save him, so he would likely pick the blue pill to save her. And my mother knows that my sister thinks her husband is colorblind. That would be enough of a doubt that she would vote blue without hesitation, to save her daughter. Even without that, she's a very self-sacrificing person (as grandmothers often are) likely to pick blue because she couldn't bear to live in a world where her decision contributed to her children's deaths. And I know all of the above, and I know other family members are following the same logic chain, this seed of doubt spreading... and hey colorblindness isn't that uncommon right, and what about regular blindness, and...
(This colorblindness concern is scenario specific, but I'm sure there would be some other niggling doubt leading to an altruism cascade for other hypotheticals too.)
I'm not sure I want to live in the sort of world where blue loses the vote. For a start, I suspect the blue vote to be higher amongst women. Losing some nontrivial chunk of the population is likely to lead to supply chain disruptions, famine, recriminations, war etc... and all the most pro-social people are gone. I'd be potentially living with the crippling guilt that most of my family is dead and it's my fault.
Yeah I think I've blue-pilled myself.
But that chain isn't about personal choice, it's all about "I think/believe/know X would pick blue so I have to pick blue, but if I knew X would pick red, I might pick red". It's "he's going to pick blue because... so I have to pick blue/she's going to pick blue because she thinks I'll pick blue so I have to pick blue/they're going to pick blue so I have to pick blue" on outwards.
The problem is, unless you can be sure enough people pick blue, then you're imposing a death sentence on everyone by picking blue, because if there aren't enough of you to hit the 50%+ limit, too bad, now everyone who picked blue dies. And if you're picking blue to save X because you think X will pick blue, and X knows that, then you're forcing X to pick blue to save you and that leads to picking blue by compulsion which then leads to the possibility of 'not enough to win but enough to lose' blue choices.
I'm considering the "no communication" scenario. I don't know if my sister, brother-in-law or mother picked blue, they don't know if I picked blue. All I have to go on is whether I think they're the type of person who might pick blue, either by mistake or altruistically.
Me choosing blue doesn't impose a death sentence on anyone besides (potentially) myself. Me choosing red could impose a death sentence on others.
I guess you could argue that living a virtuous life such that others assume I would pick blue is imposing a death sentence on them, and therefore I should be a maximally selfish asshole at all times. Is that your strategy?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link