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 -
Is there any evidence that what she did was in any way warrented?
Is everyone just reflexively reacting to certain words and not actually reading the thread?
Reread.
It is SS's contention that the Israeli-born Attorney General of Nevada, Signal Chattah, arranged a special deal for Artem Alexandrovich because she's a Zionist.
So far as I know, there is no evidence that (a) the state AG was directly involved or (b) that allowing a foreign government official to return to their home country while facing charges in the US is unusual. We do not know why Alexandrovich was allowed bail while the other suspects were not or if he got special treatment for being a foreign government official.
If both (a) and (b) are proven, then maybe we can question Chattah's reasoning.
But right now, it's just the usual insinuations about Jews.
Regarding b), not letting people charged with a crime leave the country until they've been acquitted is indeed standard operating procedure in any self-respectibg country. Some people have diplomatic immunity, but no one showed that was the case here.
Regarding a), given the above someone dropped the ball, if you want to claim it wasn't the AG, I suppose that's fine, but the "you don't have any evidence for X" argument in a case where the public has no access to all the evidence, is just tiresome.
You're making almost as many assumptions as SS, largely based on what you feel should be true.
You don't find it tiresome to claim "Someone involved is a Jew, therefore this is Jews being nefarious." But pointing out we have no evidence that the Jew in question was involved at all is tiresome. In the absence of evidence, the public should reasonably conclude "Jews."
Okay.
Are you incapable of accurately stating the other side's argument, or just unwilling?
What do you understand to be the other side's argument?
That if you're reasoning in a hostile epistemic environment, you have to make leaps of logic without evidence because evidence will be denied to you.
If, hypothetically speaking, a murder was carried out in a heavily Italian-American town and the burly, besuited man caught with the gun in his hand disappeared from police custody and reappeared in Sicily with a new house and a nice car, you might suspect Mafia involvement. You won't have evidence for that suspicion, because those involved in the case aren't total idiots, but you might suspect it anyway. And your friend might say, quite reasonably, "Look, some of the police are Italian-American, yes, but not every Italian-American is in the Mafia. Do you have any actual hard evidence to back up your story except a DVD of the Godfather?" And you might reasonably say back, "Look, these people are not idiots who drop their receipts and a fax of their telecoms all over the place."
In short, because competent operators don't leave evidence on the ground, your opinion on 'Was this Zionist Jew removed from custody through the nefarious actions of other Zionists/Jews' is going to basically be a referendum on:
And depending on the conclusion you reach, will probably shift your priors/needle on those questions a small but appreciable amount.
It's one thing to make inferences. Some inferences are reasonable, in the absence of evidence. But "leaps of logic" land you into assumptions based on the presumption that your inferences are accurate.
I think your Mafia/Zionist comparison is rather specious, but is the theory that a Zionist AG did a special favor for an Israeli plausible? I'll say I could be persuaded. But given that everyone making the "leap of logic" to assume it is true just happens to be someone who hates Jews, I find it reasonable to be skeptical and demand more evidence than someone's feelings about Jews.
Apologies if you find the metaphor specious. It's deliberately extreme, of course. Although interestingly an inability to draw these kinds of conclusions about the actual mafia is apparently wreaking havok in Germany.
Doesn't it make at least as much sense to reverse this? I suggested before that the main factor determining whether one believes or disbelieves in foul play about these kinds of incidents is:
Then it would make total sense that individuals who believe both these things dislike Group X. It would be kind of weird not to. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken.
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