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 -
Hello everyone, I continue to have no idea what Dean is talking about, either in the post above or in the many responses to me (ex. most recently here). I know that Dean does not like it when I talk about 2020 election fraud theories, but I have no idea exactly why. This is a saga that has been going on for almost two years now, and I keep linking to this exchange in May 2021 as illustrative.
For example, Dean accused me of being selective with what theories I cover. When I asked which ones I should pay attention to, his responses were: "I'm not particularly interested in trying to feed you sources to be judged by you on your standards on credibility to consistency standards you impose that helpfully weed out things other people might care about and could even be true." and "I am uninterested in providing you sources on other people's positions given your conduct on this topic."
I don't know if I'm off-base here, but this reads to me as "It's not my job to educate you" which does not strike me as helpful or productive. Does anyone disagree with my interpretation?
I still continued trying to figure exactly what I should do differently. When I asked if focusing on Trump's theories was valid, Dean claimed accused me of incompetence and bad faith because "you are supposed to know that a lot of what Trump says is nonsense no matter what he talks about" and then I'm accused of lying about something (no idea what exactly): "In two sentences you have given what could be called lies about other peoples positions already given to you. This faux ignorance of other people's posts made just hours or minutes ago, and significant mis-representation of what has already been given to you, robs an exchange of sources or justifications of any value."
I've confessed that I don't know what I'm supposed to do differently. I mean, besides adopting Dean's preferred conclusions of course. Short of that, can ANYBODY provide ANY insight into the specific concerns and what EXACTLY I should do differently? I love feedback! Especially when I can understand it.
Holy shit. In a place more lively and with lesser tolerance for loquacious casuistry this would have become an iconic copypasta, to respond with when called out on evidence-free bullshitting.
Of course, it's a perfectly valid meta-level take... assuming it rests on some substance, such as there having been some earlier interaction when sources one can reasonably deem high-quality had been presented; and that's a big assumption which does not match my recollection of this discourse. That said –
My recollection is probably retarded anyway.
Thanks to you and @Dean both for lessons in Advanced English.
Not that specific link, but for some of what was being referenced to in the thread chain were same-day postings by
motteposting
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h02is5b/
anti-dan had some relevant sources
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h04dnh3/
There are some other posters there who are referring to then-contemporary news or events.
Further, that was a post chain that started from a position of explicitly referring to multiple prior exchanges. Reminder that this was 31May thread, so about 5 and 1/2 months after 6Jan, with nearly a third of a year of information degredation on the reporting contemporary to 6Jan itself, and over half a year since the election, with even more about the reporting (and prior culture war threads) about that.
And since navigating that chain is a nightmare, but since I may apparently need it in the future, the root-thread- including higher-level exchanges before what ymeskhout likes to link to but which cover the lead-up that was summarized- is here
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nowgdg/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_may_31_2021/h025iak/
My loquaciousness in english is proportional to my state of mind.
For reference, the above is what you asked me to stop doing.
For posterity's sake, I already responded (multiple instances and down thread) to each comment you are linking to in your post. It's refreshing to see you link to actual examples rather than speak in vagueries.
I looked through and I could not identify any false statements I've made about other people's positions, so that part is taken care of. Anyone who disagrees with this assertion is welcome to demonstrate otherwise by pointing with some specificity.
I've never made the claim that people have not given me arguments in the past, and that would be an especially silly to say given that you're linking to a thread where...I respond to people's arguments. So that part is also taken care of.
Ditto with me claiming to not being provided with insight into specific concerns, as the thread shows otherwise. The one aspect I'd agree with is that I don't believe I've gotten a reasonable attempt to answer some variant of this question: "We still come back to the same question. Why are these supposed blockbuster claims ignored by every level of the institutions this country has built specifically to ferret this out?"
Overall, this is good news! You've had some concerns about me lying, and those concerns appear to be misplaced, so maybe we can be friends now. Of course, I suspect you will remain perennially angry with me unless I adopt wholesale whatever preferred conclusions you have about the topic. That has been my operating theory for a long time. If that's the case, I think that's really silly and there's nothing else to discuss. Please just admit it and save us both the time.
But! If my suspicion is terribly misplaced, I will forever maintain an open invitation for you to describe (in precise detail) what exactly I can do to change your opinion of me. In this (very long) thread from Aug '21, I invited @motteposting to outline what evidence and arguments I should consider. Who knows if they found my attempts satisfactory, but anyone can click and decide for themselves how diligent my efforts are, and whether or not I operate on good faith. I'm not trying to hide the ball here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed it is, and as said before I maintain it is more condemning of you than defending. To quote from the May 21 you link to-
I maintain this is the case, because you are continuing to do this in your attempt to defend against it.
Yes, and claims of ignorance like this is why I doubt your good faith.
I have, by your own link that you keep referring to, stated that I am uninterested in providing you sources on other people's positions given your conduct on the topic. What is my allegation of your conduct on the topic? My characterization of your conduct is- per the May 21 link- your reoccuring flaw to conflate far too diverse circumstances and contexts into a nominal narrative that ignores or dismisses people's actual positions/concerns while presenting a viewpoint they don't hold as the undisputed reality.
Your very response is to conflate different circumstances (quotations, in this case) to ignore a stated position, and assign a position I do not hold.
In this very citation paragraph you engage in this. The very reason of why I do not provide you sources is in your link, because of your conduct. Which you conflate with... 'it is not my job to educate you.'
My position is not that it is not my job to educate you. Stop lying about the position not only given to you, but that you cite.
Oh, hey, conflating past conversations for a unified narrative. I'm sure that the actual context had no meddlesome distinctions from any other discussion, such as the literal versus serious dynamic that was relevant around Trump, or specific Trump messages in the context they were provided.
Clearly a sentence that internally references other posts made at the time is has no missing context that is being ommitted for the sake of a narrative here and now.
Sure. Stop lying.
Stop lying about other people's positions are when they give it to you. Stop lying about people having never given you other arguments in the past. Stop lying that you haven't been provided insight into the specific concerns.
If you can't understand what someone says, confess incapability. If you can't remember what someone said, or find where it was, confess the failures of memory or recordkeeping. If you can't accept what other people say as valid, you won't be able to confess that sort of failing by its nature, but lack of selfawareness is no reason to lie about not being given reasons in the past.
To stop doing the flaw you have been described as having, stop conflating far too diverse circumstances and contexts into a nominal narrative that ignores or dismisses people's actual positions/concerns while presenting a viewpoint they don't hold.
Now, I have no expectation of you doing such, and fully expect you to pull out the May 21 link the next go around to go 'why has she never told me', instead of this, but that's only because this is, what, the fourth exchange on this subject where you ask the same questions about why you've never been given an answer?
That's a lot of words, and if he was doing that, it'd be bad, but can you link these broad statements to specific examples when you make them? You linked a few reddit posts and I have no clue how they relate to the above.
Which circumstances, contexts, narratives, what actual positions/concerns are being dismissed, what viewpoints aren't held? I genuinely don't know what you're saying.
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, you get some slack because of our unofficial, unwritten policy of being more lenient with people giving mods shit than non-mods (even when they are arguing with a mod who is speaking in a non-mod capacity) but directly calling someone a liar is always going to cross the line unless you can unambiguously prove that the person you're accusing is in fact lying. From my perspective, what you have here is a failure to communicate. I don't doubt you genuinely believe that @ymeskhout is a liar. However, I do doubt that @ymeskhout believes he is a liar.
I am not going to dig through all of your back-and-forths line by line to extract the exact phrase that you contend was a willful mistatement of the truth (and for which I would then have to dig through probably two years of previous conversations in order to render judgment on whether it is in fact a lie). What I gather from a quick read is you think @ymeskhout is riding a personal hobby horse and coming back over and over with the same talking points until those willing and able to argue with him in detail are worn out and have ceded the field. Which, fair enough, you can think that and you can say that. Is he lying? You can't read his mind and know that.
Here's a very simple rule which we have always enforced: don't make personal attacks. You are certainly verbally adroit enough to get your point across without calling someone a liar, and if that sounds like "You can say you don't think someone is being honest as long as you don't outright call them a liar," that's correct. Attack the position, attack the words, point out what you perceive to be the contradictions. That leaves the ball in the other person's court, and they can then either rebut, clarify, or say nothing and let the audience be the judge.
But your hostility has ticked past the "slightly heated" phase and seems to be entering "personal grudge" territory, so cool it.
The reason I call him lying now, but not before, is specifically because he specifically (and has repeatedly) quotes a post (the May21 post and thread) that says why I no longer provide him with sources, and then claims I provide him no reason, but also that my reason is something else. This is not the first time he's pulled this particular phrasing (not my job to educate you) either, or the first time it's been clarified that, no, the reason is in what he is quoting. He then repeats the same claim, and the same wonderment, at the next opportunity.
The first time could be a misinterpretation (hence why it was initially described as a flaw), the second time a miscommunication, the third even a sloppy strawman, but after the fourth or fifth exchange of a saved post being re-raised in the right way it ceases to be credible that it's accidental. Consistent misrepresentation of text and position, especially after multiple clarification, indicates will.
The charge of lying, to be clear, is specially for how he uses the May 21 quote chain he keeps on hand. I do not consider his flaw of conflating different conversations into a single narrative to be a lie, just a flaw, except when it engages in willful misrepresentation of the specified quoting.
No need, since the lie accusation specific to this week, but I understand (and agree with) the premise behind this decision. I, too, would prefer (/expect/respect) focusing on behavioral trends rather than re-litigate past months of packed weeks of material.
Which is ironically relevant to this dispute, since demands to relitigate past months of culture war exchanges was one of the points that led to the assessment he cites.
I understand and accept this chastisement in the spirit it is intended.
I also note that the exchange that started this exchange this week was a response to boo-outgroup remarks that would be personal attacks were the people who'd stopped engaging him still around. (This is where we get the evaporative cooling point from in the separate thread this week, which was not a response as I walked away.)
I will try, but it would probably help if the mod in question stopped trying to pull saved-quote-jutsu to misrepresent the same saved quote.
I offer the link in the interest of transparency. People can click the link and read it themselves, I'm not hiding the ball. I think it's an illustrative exchange, because you've expressed clear enmity towards me for several years. Again, people can click and read themselves and you can write and explain yourself. Maybe some people will get it, maybe they won't. That's up to them.
I remain surprised by just how much outright hostility and anger I've engendered from you. I try my best to use clear language, precise terminology, links to sources, citations to evidence, et cetera. I have made earnest attempts at reading your posts multiple times and I am here again to say that I do not understand your positions. I think the clarifying questions I ask are simple enough, and you've either refused to answer them or you have and I'm just incapable of understanding them.
On the specific topic of 2020 elections, I've engaged with motteposting and shakesneer and others various times over the years. Even when I maintain my disagreements, I rarely walk away completely befuddled from what they've written. I have no explanation for why your posts are so inscrutable to me, but they are. It's up to you to choose if this continues to be a worthwhile use of your time.
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