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 -
The McGregor verdict and modus ponens
Hypocrisy goes both ways
If you know anything about mixed martial arts, I’m sure you’re familiar with the name Conor McGregor. He’s a titan in the field, perhaps the single most famous sportsperson from this island since George Best, and a rare sportsperson who can honestly claim to have achieved the status of international household name, right up there with Cristiano Ronaldo, Venus Williams or Michael Jordan.
If you only know him from his MMA career, you may be unaware that he is scum. Scum of the lowest order: a narcissistic, immature, pathologically thin-skinned, emotionally incontinent, short-tempered, bullying, coke-addled, vicious thug and rapist. Despite having made a name for himself through his career in MMA, the “controversies” section on his Wikipedia page is nearly 500 words longer than the “professional mixed martial arts career” section, and includes such charming anecdotes as the occasion on which McGregor assaulted a man in his fifties in a pub, prompted by the outrageous provocation of the man politely declining a glass of whiskey McGregor had offered him. Until very recently, his laundry list of well-documented episodes of violent assault, sexual misconduct and general scumbaggery have done nothing to slow down his career, as he pivoted into the film industry with this year’s remake of Road House, and recently announced his intention to run for President in next year’s election.1
It need hardly be said that I think he would be just about the most atrocious ambassador for the nation imaginable, and after running through the list of Irish citizens I most despise, I’m honestly struggling to think of one I think would be a poorer fit. Leo Varadkar? Gerry Adams? Marylou McDonald? Maria Bailey, of Swing-gate fame? Barry Keoghan? Ryan Tubridy? Aisling Bea? Bono? Bob Geldof? The 2 Johnnies? Jacksepticeye? One of those interchangeable (and insufferable) post-punk “musicians” clogging up the airwaves? Jedward? Dustin the Turkey? Any of these, I believe, would represent the nation far better than McGregor.
And what unnerves me most is that I don’t think this is some far-off hypothetical: I think that McGregor has a decent chance of being elected. For anyone who thinks that such an outcome is preposterous, the fact that known gangster Gerry “The Monk” Hutch recently came within a hair’s breadth of being elected to the Dáil should prompt some earnest (and alarmed) reconsideration.
Within Ireland, McGregor is particularly well-known for his mistreatment of women, having been accused of rape and sexual assault on multiple occasions in Spain, Corsica, the US, and of course in his home country. Criminal charges have never been brought against him, owing to lack of evidence (an unfortunately perennial problem in cases of this type); but one complainant, Nikita Hand, was brave enough to sue him in a civil action, and the jury has recently found in Hand’s favour. Now that the trial is over, the injunction on the media has been lifted and they are permitted to disclose various details about the case, including the fact that Hand alleges that, after she filed the civil action, masked men broke into her home and stabbed her partner. McGregor finally appears to be facing some meaningful repercussions for his misconduct as, in light of the ruling, various brands (including IO Interactive, Musgraves and Wetherspoons) have announced that they are cutting their professional ties with him and/or refusing to stock his licensed beer and whiskey.
One reaction to the outcome of the trial I found particularly sharp was from Waterford Whispers News, a satire website which aspires to be sort of like the parochial Irish equivalent of The Onion. Between 2013-16, the website would reliably have a wittingly biting take on virtually every major news story in Ireland (this one was a particular favourite). After that golden era, the website kind of fell off and stopped seeing nearly as much traction on social media. Much like their main source of inspiration, they dropped all pretensions to neutrality and pretty much openly announced that their satire would only be a means to advance a socially progressive worldview, to the point that, earlier this year, they were literally selling merch with the dictionary definition of the word "woke" printed on it, defined as "1. Alert to prejudice and injustice 2. Not a prick" - what is this, 2014?
But occasionally, WWN can still knock the ball out of the park, as with this post:
The joke is sharply observed. There are many working-class activists who are opposed to inward migration into Ireland, and who will often justify said opposition on the grounds that they are concerned about immigrants sexually assaulting Irish women. With very few exceptions, such people tend to be fervent admirers of Conor McGregor. It would not surprise me if at least one of the men who allegedly broke into Nikita Hand’s house with the goal of intimidating her into silence subsequently attended an anti-immigration protest at which he chanted the slogan “keep women safe”. The hypocrisy is indisputable: either such people only get up in arms about Irish women being raped when it’s foreigners doing the raping (but turn a blind eye when it’s one of their own); or their opposition to immigration is driven entirely by racial animus, and the ostensible concern about sexual assault is a fig leaf. Sharp take, no notes.
Well, maybe one.
Are you familiar with the phrase “one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens”?
This is a concept in formal logic that it took me awhile to get my head around. A modus ponens argument takes the form “if A, then B; A; therefore B”, while a modus tollens argument takes the form “If A, then B; not B; therefore not A”. In other words, if someone is saying you should believe B because A is true, the success of that argument hinges on whether or not you believe A is true; if you don’t believe that A is true, their argument immediately backfires. The concept is best illustrated using examples (all of which are sourced from this article):
Perhaps you’ve guessed where I’m going with this. As I said, it is inarguably true that if you’re up in arms about immigrants assaulting Irish women, you should be equally outraged when an Irishman like Conor McGregor does so. But the reverse is also true: if you’re up in arms about an Irishman like Conor McGregor assaulting Irish women, you should be equally outraged when an immigrant does so.
Cast your mind back to January 2022. The country was reeling from the shocking, inexplicable murder of Ashling Murphy, a primary school teacher who went for a run along the Grand Canal near Tullamore, only to be brutally stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. In the week following her murder, social media was agog with insinuations or outright accusations that all Irish men were indirectly complicit in her murder; that her murder was the result of a toxic Irish rape culture which knowingly ignores, downplays or minimises male violence towards women. Both President Michael D. Higgins and then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar offered their condolences to the victim’s family. Rape crisis organisations called on the Department of Education to implement a national policy on sexual harassment and assault in schools.
Then, less than a week later, they arrested the murderer, and he turned out to be a Roma man from Slovakia named Jozef Puska. Everyone immediately shut up about it. Overnight, it went from being the most talked about story in Ireland to being a page four story at best. The silence was deafening, particularly in light of the furore that had preceded it the week prior.
Google Trends chart showing interest in the case over time. As usual, Google Trends bears out my gut feeling recollection of the period.
Ask yourself: in what universe can it be that a murder case is the most talked-about news story in a particular country, and the arrest of the perpetrator results in the amount of traffic it generates falling to 43% of its peak? That should have been the peak of interest in the story: the murderer brought to justice, the heroic denouement. A sharp drop like this is not what it looks like when a news story organically runs out of steam, the conclusion of one news cycle leading into the next. This is a society collectively choosing to ignore the news story while it’s still ongoing, avoiding thinking about it because it makes them uncomfortable.
Before Puska’s arrest, numerous activists on social media had decided, sight unseen, that a crime like Murphy’s murder doesn’t happen in a vacuum: the perpetrator must have grown up in a culture in which men feel entitled to do as they please with women’s bodies, in which male violence towards women is downplayed or minimised. This is not at all an unreasonable presumption to make. Nothing about Puska’s identity or ethnic background should have changed that supposition: it’s still the same guy doing the same crime for the same reasons. So why, after his arrest, didn’t we hear that argument trotted out quite so often in armchair psychoanalysis of Puska’s motivations?2
Oh. Because that would imply that it’s not (just?) Irish culture which is toxic, misogynistic and dismissive of male violence towards women, but Roma culture. Well, we can’t have that, can we? Wouldn’t want to be accused of being racist, or “legitimising” arguments made by the “far-right”.
Lest you think I’m exaggerating, consider the media’s reaction to the victim impact statement Murphy’s boyfriend Ryan Casey made at Puska’s trial. Casey can fairly claim to have been more bereaved by Murphy’s death than anyone, save her immediate family. Regarding Puska, Casey asserted:
This statement was conspicuously omitted from the Irish Times's and Newstalk’s coverage of the murder trial. When the statement came up on the BBC current affairs programme The View, journalist Kitty Holland (in a real mask-off moment) criticised Casey for his comments, arguing that his remarks had been “not helpful”, “not good” and had been “latched onto” by the far right.
Imagine it. Your girlfriend has been unexpectedly murdered by a complete stranger, but you can take some solace in the fact that not only your friends, family and community have rallied around you, but the entire country. Then it turns out that the perpetrator is an immigrant, and the entire country immediately drops the case like a hot potato. At the perpetrator’s murder trial, you have the temerity to criticise the legislative framework which enabled the murderer to commit his horrific crime (criticisms whose factual accuracy, to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet disputed) - and your criticisms are either ignored, or you are smeared in the press as a xenophobe for having made them. It would be funny in a Kafkaesque sort of way if it wasn’t so sickening. Casey is suing the BBC for defamation, and I hope he wins.
Always and ever it’s like this when an immigrant to Ireland commits a serious crime. Three months after Ashling Murphy’s murder, two gay men were viciously murdered in Sligo because of their sexuality. Obviously this is proof of a lingering culture of homophobia among Irish people - whoops, turns out the killer is an Iraqi Muslim, time to shut up about it forever. After the unprovoked, indiscriminate stabbing of a five-year-old girl and a care assistant which prompted last November’s Dublin riots, “respectable” outlets like The Journal, the Irish Times and the Irish Independent refrained from mentioning that the assailant was Algerian-born (something known to the tabloids and alternative media by that stage), although the Independent was plenty keen to tout the fact that the man who intervened was BRAZILIAN, in literally the first sentence of the article. I distinctly recall seeing, on the same day of the stabbing, a commenter on the r/ireland subreddit saying something to the effect of: "Imagine hearing about a horrible crime like this and your first instinct is to wonder what colour the attacker's skin is. Despicable." You mean, exactly like you're doing right now?
Irish Twitter and the r/ireland subreddit a few times a year (artist’s rendition).
The media and the chattering classes will come up with all sorts of sophisticated and self-serving justifications for why they’re so recalcitrant when reporting on these issues, why they’re adopting a clear double standard depending on whether the perpetrator of a crime is Irish or an immigrant. They’ll assert that they don’t want to unfairly tar the entire community of immigrants in Ireland by fixating too heavily on a crime committed by a single member (even if they’re perfectly willing to tar the entire community of, say, UCD agricultural science students with a baseless accusation since acknowledged to have been invented from whole cloth). They’ll say they don’t want to “legitimise” far-right talking points by bringing them up or grudgingly acknowledging that a stopped clock is right twice a day.3 They’ll claim that it isn’t fair to expect a recent Syrian refugee to adhere to the same standards of behaviour that we expect from someone like Conor McGregor, who grew up in Ireland (the soft bigotry of low expectations, as ever).
But at the end of the day, what it ultimately boils down to is wilfully ignoring or downplaying crimes when they are committed by a member of one’s in-group, or someone you see as a member of a political faction whose good side you want to stay on. Which, you may have noticed, is exactly what anti-immigration protesters are doing when they turn a blind eye to Conor McGregor’s sexual misconduct.
None of all of the above is to imply that I agree with any and all criticisms of Ireland’s policy on immigration, or that I am personally opposed to immigration into Ireland - I am not. All I’m saying is: before you lecture anti-immigration activists on their hypocrisy, first ask yourself whether you’re guilty of the exact same hypocrisy in the other direction.
1A clarification for international readers: the President of Ireland is a largely ceremonial role, and the holder wields no actual political power.
2Indeed, why did we hear more armchair psychoanalysis of the perpetrator’s motivations before we even knew who the perpetrator was, compared to after? Isn’t this completely backwards?
3One might reasonably ask: if the act of making a truthful assertion constitutes “legitimising” a complaint made by the far-right, doesn’t that suggest that the complaint might be, you know - legitimate? Either a topic is legitimate to discuss, or it isn’t. It doesn’t simply become legitimate because the “correct” people are talking about it, and remain illegitimate as long as they ignore it. There’s something weirdly nihilistic about this, the idea that the “legitimacy” of a specific grievance or complaint is a purely social matter (like whether or not distressed jeans are in this season), and wholly untethered from any claims of fact or ethical standards.
A bit of an aside, but I'd be interested to read this. (The unintended implication that strikes me as funny is that dowsing works!)
And the CIA really did have an occult warfare unit for curses, hexes and remote viewing.
The real issue with that line of the table is that "the military" is very much not a ruthlessly efficient capitalist enterprise, and accusing the CIA of being such is downright laughable. It is hard to imagine an organization less accountable to its supposed stakeholders.
It still casts doubt on XKCD’s central thesis though. “Lol well if it’s real why isn’t the military using it? Checkmate.” Well they did or at least spent a lot of effort and taxpayer money trying.
But that's not XKCD's central thesis. I think Randall would be the first to point out that the public sector routinely wastes fortunes on useless extravagances or projects which were doomed to failure from the outset, whereas private sector companies that devote too large a share of their budget to such projects eventually go bankrupt.
The claim is not "no companies are investigating this to see if it works, therefore it mustn't be real"; the claim is "if it was real, at least one company would have found a way to make money out of it". Even if you expand it to include public sector bodies, Randall's argument still holds: it's not "no companies (or public sector bodies) are investigating this to see if it works, therefore it mustn't be real"; the claim is "if it was real, at least one company (or public sector body) would have found a way to make use out of it, either by making money or by securing a competitive advantage".
If that was his point he wouldn’t have mentioned the military.
I think it's reasonable to conclude that the CIA (despite their best efforts!) never succeeded in securing a huge, unanswerable competitive advantage over their enemies using remote viewing. (One presumes if they had a functioning remote viewing unit in the 1970 or 80s, it would have taken them less than ten years after 9/11 to track down bin Laden.) The fact that they spent a fortune on something that didn't work proves nothing. Thus, Randall's thesis holds.
Or maybe remote viewing is 100% real, but the CIA doesn't have a huge, unanswerable competitive advantage over their enemies because those enemies have their own remote viewing programs.
More options
Context Copy link
What makes you think the CIA wanted to track down their “former” asset and comrade in arms? The one who’s existence justified all those lovely imperialistic wars? Even without remote viewers, they had a ton of other resources that they were aggressively not using to find him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link