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 -
I like this plan - also maybe guaranteed admission for top graduates who do military service. Your option seems more intense than military service though.
Sadly this likely opens up a ton of liability for the universities, so like many other good idea it will go into the dustbin because safetyism is the silent ruler of our day.
P.S. - any reason you have such a thing for the Alaskan wilderness?
It's romantic, IMHO. I like the idea of man vs. wild. Since I was 12, I always wanted to see what I was made of in a survival situation. I now realize that I'd probably suck a bit at it - but still admire the romanticism of it all. Chris McCandless was a hero. Even if he was also a dumbass.
Isn't this the ultimate sign of growing older? Wishing that you did X, not doing X when you had the option, and then wanting to make X an obligation for those younger than you. A sort of vicarious living. I have seen it recently in the UK with post-National Service people suggesting the return of National Service - for people younger than them, naturally...
Maybe, but I'm only 28 - perhaps too old to gain many of the benefits of the Hock, but not too old to successfully complete the Hock.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If your second block is serious - isn't this a strong case for 'safetyism'? Unless the survival rate is very high (which it would be IMO, there'd just be an industry that preps kids for success), your society would just be randomly killing a lot of its best and most courageous people for ... not that much gain. Willingness to die isn't going to select for 'bravery, nobility, and character' in the way you want it to, imo - archetypes like the corporate ladder climber snake or the dumb and brash young man will be very motivated to do this.
Early Hocks would probably look a lot like the early UFC. I'm no martial arts fan or anything like that, but as I understand it there were all kinds of guys fighting each other in the early days. There were boxers fighting wrestlers, karate guys fighting sumo dudes, and no weight classes. Now that guys have been beating on each other in the UFC ring for long enough, we've mostly figured out what strategies work (and which are shit). So now, MMA looks to be mostly pretty standardized. Twenty years after the first Hock, you'd just have people Hockmaxxing by following a fairly standard Hock prep course, just like (overly simplified) MMA guys get good at fighting MMA by doing most of the same shit - training boxing, BJJ and cardio. Not practicing karate or sumo or some shit like that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link