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 -
Well, good thing we sorted that small matter out eh? And that's withholding my disbelief that this claim is true.*
Materialism has explained ever greater fractions of reality, and everything else has been losing out. I know where my priors lie. It's the mark of a deeply broken mind to update when the evidence "forces" you to, as opposed to when you should.
*oh and it's not.
Your statement is completely wrong and a willfully revisionist reframing of history. Galileo was wrong about his claim that there were two moons on the opposite side of Saturn, but at no point did he manage to lose the entire planet, which would be an impressive feat, given that it's visible with the naked eye.
His geocentric rivals certainly didn't do a better job at predicting its motions, and where he outright won was to apply heliocentrism to the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, where geocentrism failed miserably.
Evidently this historical example, which you were wrong about, was loadbearing on your beliefs about the applicability of materialism. Given that I went to the effort of correcting you, am I to assume you're a bona-fide materialist now? Didn't think so.
Edit: Oh, the irony of using empirical investigation into material causes to judiciate this.
More options
Context Copy link