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 -
There's an easy test available: Ping a mod and ask. They haven't minded clarifying the rules in the past.
appeal to authority: @Amadan ?
This seems like an extremely legalistic argument where you want to argue about which wording is okay and which wording is not okay, but fine:
"As everyone knows"/"We all know/I'm sure you agree" is consensus-building. It assumes that everyone (here) agrees with whatever you're about to say. "Everyone knows Trump is stupid and evil." That's consensus-building, it's trying to quash anyone who might argue otherwise before you've even made your case for Trump being stupid and evil. "We all know HBD is true." Well, no, we do not all know that, it's debatable, even if you think it's beyond question. Even "I'm sure we all agree the Holocaust happened" would probably require us to point out that in fact there are people here who do not agree with that, so if that's what you're arguing, you cannot simply assert it as a known and agreed upon fact. We do not want people to try to assert some uniformity of opinion here, to imply that "everyone is on my side (except maybe ignorant outliers like you)."
I am not going to go back to parse Ashlael's original statement or gattsuru's years-long grudge against him. I don't know if he specifically used consensus-building language, but if he did and we didn't call him out on it, our bad. The fact that you're arguing a minority opinion does not preclude you from trying to assert a (non-existent) consensus. People do that all the time. "Of course Marxism is correct, only people who refuse to look at facts and logic say otherwise." (This was basically Marxbro's entire schtick.) "God is real, we all feel God's presence, nonbelievers are just in denial." Not an argument seen here very often, but it's a popular one with certain Christians and would almost certainly get modded for trying to assert "we all" feel something without justifying it. I don't know what gattsuru is claiming Ashlael was "consensus-building" about, but it has nothing to do with how many people here actually agreed with him or not.
Thanks.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, bur for the 3d: I don't think statements of the type 'I think marxism/christianity is obviously correct, opponents are in denial/refuse to look at the facts' should be modded, because they are very close to 'marxism/christianity is correct'. Believers in any ideology are almost never teetering on the brink ('I'm 50/50 on whether marxism or libertarianism is correct - I just go for marxism for the social status'), they are usually pretty certain of their choice - and concurrently, certain that their opponents are in error. The rule forces a neutral view which is at odds with psychological reality. Not just Marxbro's psychological reality.
"I think" does a lot of work there. ZorbaTHut has commented on this before, that simply prefacing an assertion with "I think" makes it clear that it is your opinion. It may not seem to some like it should matter so much, but it does.
"Marxism/Christianity is obviously correct" - consensus-building. "I think Marxism/Christianity is obviously correct" - your opinion.
"opponents are in denial/refuse to look at the facts" is a more dubious assertion and might get modded (depending on context) for making broad generalizations without foundation. We dislike it when you simply assert that people who disagree with you are "refusing to look at facts," but you can make an argument for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you, and my apologies for the bother.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link