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 feel a lot of empathy for this point of view and I almost agree, but there are at the same time some implications in your comment that are truly horrifying.
The notion that any degree of actual attempt at political involvement is an actively bad thing is one that is acutely poisonous to democratic society at large, in addition to being morally repulsive to me. What happened to civic duty and responsibility? Meaningfully participating in communities more broadly? I’m not sure you can simply separate “oh, this is a local issue” and “oh, this is a national issue I am powerless about”. People drastically undersell the network effects of sharing their own opinion, let alone actually volunteering for a candidate. While it’s true a lot of people find themselves in an endless cycle of outrage and fear, egged on by the national media and political cycles, it’s also seems to be true that the antidote is the moderating influence of interpersonal discussion. It’s not a catalyst for more outrage, it’s a set of social brakes.
Perhaps this is an inaccurate read of your comment but my first impression was definitely one preaching political inactivity as a virtue, which it is not.
Your interpretation is a bit of an exaggeration of what I'm saying, but not completely off base.
Civic duty to whom? Which group? And how much of that duty can I expect will be reciprocated? At the national level... not much. Most people can't 'meaningfully participate' in a national 'community' in the U.S. because its just too big for them to have any noticeable, appreciable effect, and it's dominated by insiders!
There are certainly those who are good at making people feel like they had such an effect, though! But this reads to me as exploitation.
I'm not suggesting political apathy is the best path (okay, being honest, for many, many people it might be!). Only that much political activity is essentially throwing one's time, effort, and money into a machine that will only occasionally spit out a return on the investment, and usually it will be less than you put in, so one should be judicious about how much they insert.
And in the most heavily contested elections its all a red Queen's race/Molochian spiral, the more money and effort one candidate throws in, the more the other has to throw in attempting to counter, yet the outcome needle will barely move to the extent their efforts cancel out. That's a lot of resources being burned for effectively no gain!
Speaking of cancelling out, one thing I keep coming back to is how overhyped voting is, for any national-level position, because you can spend hours of time becoming informed about the issues and candidates and determining the 'optimal' vote to cast for your preferred outcome... only to be cancelled out by some yahoo that either doesn't investigate the issues or just listened to a pundit and chose that way. It makes more sense to find someone else who would vote opposite you and both agree to stay home for all the impact you have on the outcome.
Note that I make the exception for local elections and issues where the chances of you casting a deciding vote are substantially increased.
EVEN THEN, the marginal returns on getting heavily involved and actively contributing substantial funds and time to campaigns are TINY for any person who doesn't happen to have outsized influence in a given community. i.e. a celebrity or other 'elite' member that others look to for guidance.
And by definition, it is impossible for everyone to have an outsized influence.
In short, it's a power law distribution. 80+% of the outcome is attributable to <20% of the people's efforts. My attempts to sway opinions will be far less impactful than a political pundit with 100k+ listeners will be. Does this mean I don't attempt to sway opinions? Nah. In fact, I just put in targetted efforts towards the few people I'm most likely to be able to sway (my own family, generally speaking) and don't bother much beyond that.
If you consider that becoming more politically active is likely to cause you to lose friends and connections you might have otherwise maintained, then it is entirely possible for political activity to produce a significant and consistent negative return for you!
SO:
Explain to me how my life will become happier and more fulfilled or I'll become wealthier and more influential by becoming way more politically involved (read: devote more than an average of 5 hours/week to political causes and campaigns).
Further, explain how dating someone who is heavily politically involved will make my life happier or more fulfilled, even assuming they agree with me on object-level politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link