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 Munk Debate with Matt Taibbi, Douglas Murray, Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg is now online: Be it Resolved: Don't Trust Mainstream Media.
Contrary to many alternative media takes, I thought that Goldberg had a surprisingly strong showing. I remember her from the Peterson, Fry, et al. debate where she seemed too crude at times. This time Goldberg's opinions clearly came from experience, and her points were well conveyed. Briefly she claimed that there are clear signs that the media does learn from its mistakes and "overcorrects," that the media would not have driven you to make bad decisions if you followed it, and that the processes and culture of the media remain in place. The debate was worth watching just for her.
Murray conveyed a deep sense of moral disgust at what he saw as the carelessness of the Con side. This too came off as having come from experience. There was a point lurking here that I thought needed more articulation. The Con side said that they were professionals who were still doing what needed to be done, and they pointed frequently to successes on their side. But can one be called a professional if only the broad "process" is followed, and no attention is taken to details such as promptness of reporting, accountability, and the taking of personal responsibility rather than pointing fingers? In the absence of the markers of professionalism, it seemed more like they were claiming that their status as mainstream reporters performing an essential service gave them the right to lead people to a better future. In this I am reminded of the film The Verdict. Few people really care ifa doctor will do a fine job in the future, if he can get away with criminal negligence just this one time.
Gladwell's performance dragged down the debate consistently, but I feel some sympathy for him. His system of diversity has left him in a place that he didn't think it would take him. His constant complaints about white people did not seem enlightened, but as bigoted as any racist tract. Still, his point about whether people like him would have been "included" in the past did have something to it. What we've seen in recent times is a concept of diversity that succeeded in pushing people forward, but failed in the end to bring them up to the same standards as those who they have joined. It is just like programs which try to give educational opportunities for the disadvantaged, but which children finish without learning proper English. If you forget the goal, then you have failed and must try again. Similarly, Gladwell wasn't supposed to end his journey as something that strongly resembles a bigot, but he seemed unable to stop himself from doubling down on it despite it being obvious that it was doing them no good. If men like Gladwell begin to recognize failure and try again, perhaps building on what they have learned so far, I have little doubt that they will do a lot of good.
Taibbi did well, not much to say there. I do think that the Pro side didn't adequately answer questions about their alleged fixations on culture war (edit: and Twitter) issues, but it seems like a charge that could easily be thrown back at the mainstream media over the past decade.
It seems he contradicts himself. He says journalism should aspire to impartial, bipartisan, and fact-orientated ideals, yet he made a huge name for himself doing the very opposite, like his highly viral article about Goldman Sachs role in the 2008 financial crisis, which was as much fact as it was editorializing. Same for that Trump book.
regarding Michelle Goldberg, covid, and the MSM, everyone was wrong. The MSM overestimated vaccine, lockdown, and mask efficacy . They overestimated the infection fatality rate. The finge-right was probably wrong about underestimating death toll. But probably many deaths were erroneously labeled as Covid deaths.
Gladwell is predictably bad in debate form, like his books.
I have found that it's not so much that the media is right or wrong, although it is wrong a lot, but it's like wrong through omission, not admission. There are always key details left out. Most media sucks, either mainstream or alternative. Alternative is better ,but not that much better. I think random blogs, anons on 4chan, and twitter accounts of people with few followers and no status/clout, are the most accurate. Mainstream and alternative media are both affected by the same clickbait incentives, just different biases. Non-profit media is bad, too, because it's also biased , even if not as click-baity.
Regarding Douglas Murray, the media dropped the shooting story in part because it was no longer in the news cycle. the media does this even when the perpetrator is white, like the 2017 las Vegas shooting, which also inexplicably vanished from the headlines despite being a much worse shooting and having far more unresolved elements, so it's not so much a race or identity issue. I think though the media is more likely to omit information if the perpetrator does not fit a convenient archetype or narrative. But a story is dropped when the key details are resolved, and or it stops being interesting, or it is replaced by the latest outrage or whatever is attention-grabbing at the moment. The Canadian trucker story also vanished equally abruptly. It's interesting how stories end so fast sometimes. but other times they drag on forever even though nothing has changed much, like Ukraine.
Gladwell makes a compelling case that old time media was right to exclude people like Gladwell! Kidding aside, there needs to be more to the argument than “diversity good.” Question is has diversity improved the media product.
Did Gladwell turn out to be the long lost father of Sean King and Rachel Dolezal? What exactly is Malcolm's claim to being "diverse"?
Apparently both of his grandparents on the mother's side were of partial black ancestry. This is also news to me.
So he's.....an octaroon? A quintroon?
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