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 -
I'm here for a discussion where people actually read each other and respond in a way that is, uh, responsive to what they have said. That's kind of the purpose of this place. Ah, I do see that you're new here.
Really nice try, I am on SSC/TheMotte since 2016 never replying much but looking at the way you always respond to others, with a sense of superiority and condescension, never really reading what your interlocutor is saying, with a veneer of sneering, make me think that the only reason you comment is to elicit a faux-paus in the commenter so you can chuckle at those evil atheists that wanted proof of your metaphysical assertions while you keep repeating, comment after comment, that are absolutely and supremely true. It almost seems like that your first sentence:
it's actually false.
I've, obviously, actually read what you posted. And I responded to your assertion that you cannot call the evil atheists deluded otherwise the mods scold you and I responded with an example of a recent thread where it didn't happen. What you actually wanted was someone that said to you: "Yes, those evil atheists are actually evil, they always say evil thing like that metaphysical assertion to be presented as reasonable need at least a speck of proof instead of an ipse dixit appeal to authority [or worse, in you case ego dixi]".
Yes, it seems like it is not clear to you and think that this place is your platform to have your claims asserted without opposition. In a coven of contrarian quokkas? Are you sure that it isn't you that haven't understood the purpose of this place?
No, you didn't. You said:
That is not remotely the same. Someone simply making a bad argument for a god is miles away from calling atheists delusional. At least, it is to rational people who aren't overly emotionally invested and view literally any argument for a god, no matter how poorly constructed, as a personal attack.
It seems like it is not clear to you and think that this place is your platform to have your claims asserted without opposition. In a coven of contrarian quokkas? Are you sure that it isn't you that haven't understood the purpose of this place?
See how easy and how unhelpful it was to just assert that about you?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link