site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023

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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hello! Today, on "Fucking Stupid Politics", here's a peach, a pippin, a doozy of an example.

'Why is peepul thinking we wuz talkin' 'bout killin' peepul? Y they not get de IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGE FIGHTIN' POINT?'

Because you idiots made it about "killing", "taking out", "terrorists", etc. That is why people are discussing the ethics of murder and not your BIG IMPORTANT POINT.

These are the same people who would lip-wibble over "speech is violence". Imagine I did a graphic about "this is the harm reduction we could ensure by killing just one trans activist". Do you think they'd be all "Well Chauncey, that is an interesting rhetorical device to illustrate your thesis"? No, they'd be screaming about hate speech, death threats, inciting violence, and demanding not alone banning from all online media but the police to get involved.

And this is why they are shooting themselves in the foot over such campaigns. Never mind that if right this minute all fossil fuel extraction and production stopped, and we only had renewables and limited nuclear power to rely on. Our entire global civilisation would be in a lot of trouble because we haven't yet solved the transition problems.

The notes are getting hung up on how the carbon offset for killing an oil executive was calculated, and y'all, it's not supposed to be an accurate calculation of exactly what would happen if you killed an oil executive, it's meant to highlight just how unbelievably vast the environmental impact of the bigwigs at BP or Exxon is compared to yours, and ultimately how the planet is being knowingly and purposefully killed by a small handful of uber wealthy individuals.

No, let's keep discussing ethics. They could use a stern course of Aquinas. Even BP oil execs do not get up in the morning and go "Today I think I shall be Evil. Let me knowingly and purposefully kill the planet!" (Moustache twirling, evil laughter and gleeful hand rubbing optional).

Those guys are trying to make a living, provide a service, and sell goods. Yes, increase the profits of their company. Yes, get rich. Yes, all that. But that only happens because the entire world pretty much runs on oil. Up until the mid-19th century, petroleum deposits were useless or even seen as devaluing land if you had a lake of thick black goop slopping out of the ground. Ironically, petroleum could be seen as the environmentally friendly option, given that it replaced whale oil (due to the dwindling population of whales that were being hunted to provide oil). And so our industrial civilisation was built around it.

You can't slam the brakes on all of a sudden to move from fossil fuels to other sources. And the dumb stupid "punch a Nazi" lazy 'we're fighting a war here and we're the soldiers in the army of right' tropes on display here about "killing" people just for the job they do don't help. This is why ordinary people think the Just Stop Oil etc. campaigns are damn stupid.

Because they are.

EDIT: Ah feck it, while I'm being ranty anyway: this is instructive to compare to what I'm seeing about "Trump's 'we're coming for you' tweet is being investigated" as presumably incitement to violence and death and treason and coup and the rest of it. I was already thinking about "I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of political speeches and speeches by police commissioners and DAs and so forth about 'coming after/coming for/look out you're next' political opponents, crime, etc." so singling out this as a unique example of "no it's a definite threat of physical harm" seems to be leaning heavily on the scales.

The same way the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt was portrayed as "the Republicans with their target crosshairs poster set her up for this", never mind that people found examples of Democratic politicians also using targets/crosshairs in similar statements.

And now this: 'if we talk about killing someone, you should understand it only means 'if there were one fewer oil exec in a job' but if you use languatge like that, you really do mean to kill/harm your opponents' perfect example of one law for me and another law for thee.

  • -10

You've got nine reports for basically being antagonistic and bringing internet drama about some Tumblr nobody here to bitch about. Sometimes it's not clear where "talking about stuff happening on social media" ends and "starting threads to dunk on lolcows" begins, but this is pretty close to just lolcowing. Gosh, someone on Tumblr said something stupid? Here, let me point you to a more appropriate venue for your incisive and cutting observations about such people.

I might have let this go (other mods might not) but since you seem to be in high dudgeon and are just slagging people right and left, I'm going to give you the periodic reminder you seem to need to cool your jets and stop acting like you have special license to vent your spleen in proportion to how worked up you are.

You've had a lot of AAQCs since your last warning, so I'm just giving you another warning this time, but if you feel a need to write polemics about the latest bee in your bonnet, find a bee who at least is a recognizeable name, and then don't go off on everyone who doesn't happen to be impressed by your spleen-venting. Really, before you lash back at me like you're about to, think about it - is this really what you want this place to be for, people dragging Twitter-sorry, X, and Tumblr for some random woke idiocy to point and laugh at? It's not like there isn't a target-rich environment out there, so at least put some effort into your Two Minute Hate.

Well I am horribly sorry that I have low tolerance for "shooting my own feet off and thus destroying what would otherwise be a good argument".

Nine people got their feelings hurted? Is that a new record?

EDIT: Number alone doesn't tell me much. If one person whose opinion I value says "this thing is bad", that weighs more with me than if nine million people whose opinions don't count in my view say "it's fantastic!"

Since I have no idea who the Nine Reporters were - nor am I asking you to tell me! nor should you! - then for me it's a case of:

THAI HAIF SAID : QUHAT SAY THAY : LAT THAME SAY

I gave you the numbers because it's unusual for a comment to receive so many reports, and that is usually (not always) an indication that your comment was bad. Obviously we're not going to tell you who said what, but if you think nine people reporting you isn't enough reason to reconsider your spleen-posting and you just dismiss at as "people got their feelings hurted (sic)" (really, is that really your model for people reporting this post, that the Motte is full of climate radicals who were offended that you went off on a Tumblr climate radical?), then it makes me think that this performative navel-gazing was not sincere.

When you double down with this nonsense (which I literally can't even decipher):

THAI HAIF SAID : QUHAT SAY THAY : LAT THAME SAY

you certainly do not give the impression that you actually care about the quality of your discourse.

When you double down with this nonsense (which I literally can't even decipher):

Ah yes, I keep forgetting you children haven't read anything older than the Relatable Material in your high school English curriculum 😁

It's an older form of English (or, if I'm being exact, Lallans) which is a motto attributed to this person. Try sounding it out, you'll work it out!

But if that genuinely is too difficult, let me translate it into current American:

They have said. What say they? Let them say.

To paraphrase, it means broadly "So what if anonymous nobodies are saying this and that about me? Talk is cheap, let their tongues wag, I care not a straw whatever they may chatter".

I hope that helps with all your Gibberish Translation Needs!

(Historical illiteracy: never not entertaining to me).

Well I'll pull the trigger then.

You've got a lot of quality contributions. I would hate to see you leave, and you've been a good contributor for long enough that just about anything would result in, at most, a warning.

But going on an unbridled flamespree is past "just about anything". No, you do not get to flame people like that, nobody gets to flame people like that.

Three-day ban.

For the record, I really do hope you come back and keep posting, just not like that.