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 -
No, that's not how it works. Just because the 1942 Supreme Court was pants on head retarded doesn't make it ok for others to work off bad interpretations of the Constitution as well.
I say it does make it okay. Either words have meanings or they do not. If words consistently lose their meanings in certain circumstances (mainly when the government wants more power) then they mean nothing to begin with.
So long as that ruling is upheld, it is sufficient on its own to prove that the government's design has failed utterly. Best that words always have meanings, but better to accept reality than to sacrifice oneself fighting to uphold norms which are already broken past repair.
Until such rulings are repealed completely, all rulings are just who/whom as far as I'm concerned.
If you wish to act in bad faith because others have, I certainly can't stop you. And I doubt I could convince you that it's folly. But you have no right to complain that others act poorly when you are willing to act poorly yourself when it benefits you.
I'll continue loudly advocating for a return to principles, and loudly attacking those who pretend that we currently have principles. What part of this is bad faith?
Violence is justified in self defense. This isn't hypocrisy; there's a meaningful difference between attacking someone with violence and defending oneself with violence. The principle doesn't just allow for "acting poorly" "when it benefits you" either; it allows for "acting poorly" under a certain limited and universally applicable set of circumstances.
If the enemy has defected 100 times in a row, and you keep cooperating, it's time to start defecting no matter what they say. There's no hypocrisy there. The principle is not "never defect," it's "work tirelessly to make cooperation possible, but in the meantime don't cooperate with defectors."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link