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 -
Sure thing, there are many things that are worse than a technocrat golden boy. But when doing something like electing a candidate for president, we're not limited to consider only worse things, we actually can consider better things.
The problem is not that things are hard. The problem is when people try to "fix" things without realizing how hard they are and why they are hard. Each problem has a simple, clear and wrong solution. And that's the one the golden boy would rush to, breaking through all Chesterton fences on the way. Should we admire him for his zeal, can do attitude and energy? Maybe. Should we entrust him with our destinies because it's better than wallow in stupidity? No way.
Saying it like it is is a great quality. The problem comes when you start thinking that what you think it is is really what it is. Because more often than not, that's not the case, and lack of epistemic humility, combined with a healthy disdain for status quo and a bias for action, can lead to great things - or to spectacular epic failures. I'm not sure that "exploding lottery ticket" is the right model for a future President. And if we need somebody explosion-prone, we already got Trump anyway.
I'm not sure we should even start, until they unlearn phrases like "science is settled" and "trust the experts".
More options
Context Copy link