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 -
You'd have to talk to a lost-causer about that, I suppose.
I never said you did so that's a deflection, and it's not irrelevant, it directly addresses your argument below.
Not only is it not a cop-out, it would be a glaring contradiction if I answered anything else. You know that, because you've made fun of me when you thought that's what I was doing.
Yes, I agree this is the fundamental disagreement. No, I have not forfeited anything, as I outlined in the other argument that you dismissed as irrelevant, yes the woke might very well be right, and I might be wrong about the big questions, but it is the small things that make them evil.
It’s a common enough defense, that’s why I keep accusing FC of moral relativism, but I always have a hard time believing it is a genuine position, as opposed to a one-off tactic. Who would willingly confess to moral incompetence on all the big questions?
You guys are not behaving as if you just want people to be nice, and refuse to judge/abstain from voting on the big questions. No, you act like your side is entirely morally correct, and part of that case is that your opponents aren’t nice (well, sometimes you argue you shouldn’t be nice either because they started it, but whatever).
Someone honest about limits of their knowledge.
At this point I think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Here, again:
This does not boil down to "I just want people to be nice". Can you at least consciously try to paraphrase the above in your words, in a way that you think I'll recognize as my own views?
That's pretty reductive, but baby steps I suppose. Yes, I did say getting the small things right is more important that answering the grand moral questions, no?
Can you give an example?
Generally, the sub (and FC) is more partisan right-wing than I am on the topics you highlighted, free speech, not firing people, tolerance for differing opinions among friends.
How is that being not nice because they started it?
A common sentiment in the sub is “When we had power, we gave them free speech. Now that they have power, they deny it to us. We won’t make that mistake again.“
I feel like my worldview is close enough to FC's that I can answer for what he said (excluding the time period where he self-admittedly was in a dark place), but I'm not going to answer for "the sub".
Other than that I'm going to need something more specific. I think I had a conversation semi-recently where I defended conservative parents banning progressive books in schools, so depending on how you meant it you could fit that into "not making that mistake again", but in the same conversation I defended the right for progressives to do the same in their communities with conservative books, so I would disagree this is "not being nice because they started it".
Are you denying this is an official @FCfromSSC positionTM ? If anything, he's even more against free speech, ie, 'it was always a sham and could never have worked no matter the opponent'. Now in practice I believe he is less anti-free speech than the woke.
Nevertheless, this is a major problem for your argument. Because firstly people disagree on what the seemingly universal norm of ‘common sense decency’(small-h honor of lee and rommel) even is, and secondly, free speech to me is actually a ‘big question’, so the distinction you’re trying to make, and the world where we all just stick to your small standards, can’t exist.
Specifically, my claim is that the common understanding of free speech is not coherent, and relies on Russell's Conjugations to paper over the numerous inconsistancies: My sincere self-expression, your edgy hot-takes, his valueless filth. The reality of this situation seems undeniable to me. There have always been numerous restrictions on speech. There are numerous restrictions on speech now. There are in all likelihood always going to be numerous restrictions on speech. Failure to recognize this reality doesn't prevent restrictions being enforced, it just ensures they're enforced dishonestly and covertly. Honesty is preferable.
Not only am I less anti-free-speech than the woke, I'm more honest than the median non-woke. What is your actual objection, and why do you think some other plan is going to do better?
No, they don't. They don't value it properly, but I see no indication that anyone familiar with the facts is confused about what behaviors are being discussed. To put it very reductively, Lee and Rommel are valuable because they contained both the competence to control armies, and the character to restrain them, to keep the scale of conflict bounded.
I rather doubt that your personal definition is both a) rigorously consistent, and b) capable of being popular enough to get itself implemented and enforced at scale. Assuming I'm wrong, you should find like-minded people to form a community with, and enforce the rules as you see fit within that community. I'm going to do the same with my definition in my community, and hopefully we can each create an environment that fits our values and preferences.
Failing that, if there has to be a single rule that is enforced on everyone, I think it should be my rules.
What alternative to this do you see?
More options
Context Copy link
Depending on what you mean by it, I am against free speech, and believe it was always a sham, which is why I said I am going to need specifics. What I'm denying is that this constitutes "not being nice to them" because I don't think either of us is asking for anything we'd deny to the progressives.
But somehow, in this entire thread, no one attacked Lee or Rommel on their personal conduct.
Nah. This is the deconstructivist "X is a social construct / has fuzzy boundaries therefore X does not exist" argument, and it's pretty clearly false. Few things in the physical world, let alone human interactions, are clearly delineated, but that does not make them non-existent or meaningless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is devolving into petty squabbling, but I don't think 'wanting people to be nice' is a disparaging re-phrasing of your meaning. You admitted they are small things. The 'good manners' analogy is a more hostile paraphrase. And accusing me of cheka membership and a willingness to commit atrocities is on another level entirely. Anyway, I don't think it's for the speaker to define what can be inferred from his arguments.
Sorry, I think I ninja'd in an edit just before you posted.
I don't mind you being disparaging, it's probably unavoidable when two fundamentally different moral worldviews clash. The "good manners" thing actually works as an analogy, especially since we both recognize it as a hostile paraphrase, which is why I don't object to it. What I do mind is you being reductive. What's the point of elaborating on my worldview and giving examples, if you're just going to pretend I didn't say what I said?
Yes and no. Sure, go ahead and extrapolate as much as you want from what I said, even if I might disagree with it, but do not dismiss what I said, at least without making it explicit (calling one of my arguments irrelevant was good in that regard, because I could respond to it).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link