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 think TWG's actions were nakedly partisan, but aren't they arguably in the same camp as things like the Sokal Affair or John Bohannon's fake chocolate diet and anti-cancer drug hoaxes? I think it is worth testing the standards of outfits that people are relying on for information, if only to make sure the pipeline isn't broken and flawed in some way.
Ideally, every side should be testing their own information pipelines, and creating robust fact checking operations. But one of the good things about agonistic pluralism is that you can be assured that even if a side isn't testing their pipeline, the other side will try to do so at some point. The end result is that all of us observers watching from the side can get accurate damning information on both sides, if we're willing to wade through the words of partisans of either side.
That is all assuming such stress tests are well conducted, of course, which is no guarantee from partisan hacks.
Part of the difference in judgement and the reaction around these parts, or at the blocked and reported subreddit, is how the observer weighs the target.
We allMany of us have extremely low opinions of LoTT's reliability, I'm pretty sure even some "locals" that are mostly sympathetic to her have a low opinion of her, so it's not that interesting to pull one over on her. She's a partisan hack and everyone knew it. Tricking a stooge isn't that fun and tends to backfire (like the infamous "it's okay to be white" and OK sign things from 4chan made the world worse rather than simply revealing how gullible and bigoted a certain kind of progressive is).Pulling a hoax on the Ivory Tower, that's supposed to be our high-quality repository of knowledge, is different.
Edited in response to fair critique of consensus building language.
Consensus building. LoTT is the third of three female humans I have respect for.
Fair point, edited
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The crux of Sokal's hoax was that it was inherently obvious to anyone who had a passing knowledge of the subject matter, and that Sokal made no attempt to hide it but that no one bothered to ask about it. Tracing made claims that were very much withing the spectrum of sillyness that has occurred, and that when the target bothered to asked about it, Tracing took actions to further hide it.
In short- the Sokal hoax rests on the point that no one bothered to try and check claims that were inconsistent with the subject matter because they were politically flattering. Tracing's hoax rested on the point that he fabricated evidence that was compatible with examples of the subject matter, and then blamed the person who tried to check.
Also, the circumstances of Trace's hoax made it easier for him to hoax compared to a right-winger sending in a hoax about his left-wing enemies. An actual hoax by a right-winger that smeared a left-winger would have to remain undetected over time; the right-winger would have to be able to send it in, get it posted, and not have people all over the Internet say "that's a hoax". If people did say that, the hoax would be counterproductive.
Trace was going to expose the hoax pretty soon, so he didn't have this limitation and could make cruder hoaxes than an actual right-wing hoaxter could get away with.
More options
Context Copy link
That still sounds similar to John Bohannon's hoaxes, where he fabricated fake studies with serious issues that got through peer review. But the problem with those studies was not as obvious as the Sokal hoaxes (where a cursory reading of them is enough to show they're nonsense), the problem is the peer reviewers were obviously doing a shoddy job and not actually engaging with the studies or numbers they were asked to review.
The problem with the idea of "within the spectrum of sillyness" thinking, is that there's always the possibility that a lot of the evidence is bad or misrepresented in the first place. You see a similar phenomenon in the way some online grifters present lawsuits against themselves to their audiences. To hear the grifters tell it, they're always persecuted martyrs, but often if you actually dig up trial transcripts they're being reasonably charged with a crime they actually committed. (I am not suggesting that no one is ever targeted politically, or unfairly charged with things that someone on the other side of the political aisle wouldn't be. I'm just saying that the pattern I observed occurs a lot as well.)
I'm not that committed to defending TWG here in any case. If the consensus is that he acted as a partisan hack, and that his stress test was badly conducted, I'm happy to accept that judgment. I just think that there are ways he could have done something similar to what he did that would have been defensible, and for the epistemic good of everyone involved.
Sure. He could have done better. He could also have admitted error, in the 'I acknowledge what I did was wrong' rather than the 'I wouldn't do it again because of the reaction I received' manner that he did. It certainly didn't help that he approached his hoax in a tenor of triumphalist jeering at his target for being gullible, rather than Sokal's matter-of-fact 'this is what I did, this is how I did it, and these are the stages where a reasonable reviewer should and could have asked questions.'
That TWG is a partisan is the least of the issues that led to the response. There are plenty of partisans in the Motte community, for various factions and interests. The issue was that he expected to be applauded for it, and then blamed anyone but himself for the response with poorly disguised contempt. There was a reason his depture-flounce was with a 'I've hated this entire community for so long now' spiel despite having re-entered to post a dunk-piece while claiming solidarity with the community, and that reason was that his claimed solidarity was insincere and had been for some time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link