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 -
My point though is there is evidence that they can. Arguably the whole Republican movement has been moved towards a more populist, more protectionist, more working class focused coalition, with all that entails. Some of the very people who might be rubbing your nose in it, may well have themselves moored their boats elsewhere in the last decade. In the UK, the Trans faction does appear to have been set somewhat adrift from the major parties with Labour distancing themselves. Pretty much the Scottish national party is the biggest supporter, and by all indications they may be about to take a drubbing from Labour.
If Coalition A wants something you don't like then it is of course reasonable to oppose them, and it is then likely that whatever positions they choose next you probably also won't be too happy with. Coalitions aren't random generally. But that still isn't a slippery slope argument, it's just why you don't like that coalition in the first place.
If you are a hardcore leftist then you are unlikely to like both deregulation of industry and restriction of abortion rights and union busting activities. And all of those are likely to be clustered around the party you do not like. But it doesn't make sense to say that is a slippery slope. Otherwise every policy you dislike is the beginning of a slippery slope to some other policy you don't like.
Rhetorically it's fine. I am sure if I were employed as a political consultant with the Republicans I would absolutely be telling them to hammer their base with slippery slope arguments about gay marriage (well maybe not this year, the abortion issue is looking like a hot potato, so I am not sure they want to put gay marriage into the mix in an election year). But that doesn't mean it is is a very rigorous argument.
I don't disagree with this; they could, and they could have. It's just that they really didn't, in contrast to my own predictions at the time and in concordance with the predictions of my ideological enemies. This, in itself, vindicates the slippery slope argument. Just because a slope is slippery doesn't mean someone has to slip on it; it's just that, in this case, people did slip on it in very much the same way that the people who called the slope slippery had predicted.
I think i'd disagree. A slippery slope argument implies B must be caused by A. If it weren't its just a slope, not a slippery slope.
And i would say the evidence suggests any given trans issue is not directly caused by gay marriage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link