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 -
Interesting article.
In countries where prior restraint is common, keeping the target of an investigation in the dark might be the only way to publish at all. Of course, in the US prior restraint is virtually non-existent, so that this certainly does not apply to this case.
Likewise, there might be tactical considerations not confront the target of an investigation early on. "Dear Macbeth, just as an heads up, we are currently investigating an alleged involvement of you into the demise of the previous king" is certainly not required. But if you have spend months gathering the facts, then you should give the other party some time to respond.
In general, there is a cooperative mindset and an adversarial mindset. From my perspective, both can be wrong in some cases. If your target has clearly defected from humanity so completely that no further cooperation with them is ever possible, trying to destroy them with your investigation may be imperative. So if you discover proof that the Nazis are running death camps, you will probably not want to give them two weeks of time to do damage control, preempt your story by releasing damning information with their own framing and generally put their spin on it.
In the real world, few people and organisations are so beyond redemption that destroying them by turning arguments into soldiers is worth the price on your soul and the damage to the epistemic commons. The Sequences are very clear that humans are not naturally good on doing Bayesian updates from partisan information.
Civil courts work (mostly) with two adversarial sides presenting self-interested arguments because there are certain standards of evidence and the judges know the takes to be partisan and spent some effort to find the truth between the stories of both sides.
The court of public opinion may occasionally stumble on the truth if a matter appears very one-sided and also is very one-sided, but in most cases, almost nobody will find the shy flower of the truth on the Verdun-esque battlefield left by unrestricted argument warfare.
More options
Context Copy link