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 rest of your post deals with the specifics of the video itself, and I couldn't give less of a shit about what actually happened if I tried, so I apologise if this seems like I'm picking on you, but my intention is to point out that Sunshine made a phenomenally excellent point. Smuggling in 'official statements' with facts and logic, like they are even in the same universe, is beyond ignorant. The difference between smh and the telegram chuds he scoffs at is that the misinformation printed on those telegram channels is written by someone who actually believes it.
An official source is written by a professional. The writers aren't concerned with the truth of a situation, they are concerned with its management. They will omit details, use careful wording ("no evidence to substantiate claims") and construct a story that serves their interests first and foremost. They aren't necessarily lying, but they are absolutely not telling you the whole truth. They are spin doctors, and to take their word as gospel is profoundly naive. Just like trusting a random dude on social media, trusting official sources is just outsourcing your critical thinking to people that have repeatedly proven themselves unworthy of that trust.
Also lol at the idea distrusting the authorities is the modern equivalent of a witch hunt. Was it Matthew Hopkins Witchfinder Footsoldier? Who ran the Spanish inquisition again?
I know everyone wants to talk about this shit, because it's currently popping off. So I don't expect everyone to adhere to my 'wait at least a week before I even consider judging the facts of the situation' stance. But it would be nice if the people who brag about epistemic humility actually employed it.
Putting aside how significant that difference is, am I to grant more latitude to flat earther propaganda because they hold actual beliefs when journalists, you say, do not?
The information environment sucks. Traditional and nu-media, professionals and amateurs, they all contribute to the state of it. I don't care for the meme right's slop factory products or The Guardian's. All I can do is complain about it, so I have and will continue to.
I'm not comparing chuds to journalists, saying one is more honest than the other, or judging that one has better epistemics as a category. I don't particularly trust journalists. Scott's assessment is correct, but he is too kind to internalize the more severe implications of a "not touching you" grade of truth in reporting. I am not inclined to tolerate wishful bullshit of others because of journalism's failures. I'll add that 'telegram chuds' isn't
charitablea complete description. It's a variety of online right wing subcultures that are chomping at the bit to slurp down the outrage.My suggestion is to build a gallows. Whoever can be scapegoated as the highest possible government official who failed with knowledge of grooming gangs at the time has to go. Yes, retroactively. They probably can't re-sentence the perps, so they need to make a big show of another newly convicted Asian guy. Sucks for him, but the people bay for blood.
I share an impulse to scrutinize authority. Not all scrutiny is good, pro-social, or justified.
I am not entrenched in some position. I thought I was pretty clearly arguing that we don't know shit, so you shouldn't have that opinion with certainty, because it is not founded. I gave my opinion on what it looks like to me with the limited information we have. I am more than happy to vacate my position of ignorance for a better informed one. I'm probably not going to get that information from the outrage factory.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that sums up my stance, and is, in fact, what I actually said. I am not leaning uncritically on the police report, I consider it significant, but I have taken pains to explain the local sociocultural milieu.
The fuck? Scott has a point about "bounded distrust". Governments, and their official mouthpieces are neither infinitely trustworthy nor untrustworthy. You can throw just about anything Pyongyang says into the trash, other nations command more credibility. Britain is not North Korea.
If firefighters ask you to evacuate your building because of a gas leak, don't tell me you're going to go lighting matches to see for yourself, because you don't trust a damn thing The Man tells you.
What is that I imagine hearing you say? I'm strawmanning you? Then I'd invite you to reconsider attempting to brand me as someone slavishly dependent on the "official" take.
I don't consider that strawmanning, I consider it a misunderstanding of my position. It does illustrate my point though. I would not light matches to see for myself, no, because a fire-fighter telling me there is a gas leak in my building is an immediate authority dealing with an ongoing situation. A police department's press office is a completely different animal, they are engaged in narrative control after the fact. Conflating the two and suggesting they require the same level of compliance... I don't have a brand, I have a label maker and OCD.
Anyway my point is that Pyongyang or London, lumping official statements in with facts and logic is downright insidious. As for 'nudging your priors at least a little' if that is indeed all you meant and it wasn't an ironic 'OBVIOUSLY this is the correct take' line, then you should think about how you write everything else in your post, especially the faux wistful "Of course, if you prefer your axes in the hands of twelve-year-olds fighting imaginary Bulgarian sex pests, I suppose nothing I write will convince you otherwise." that follows it. That is not the language of the thoughtful truth seeker, it is the language of the partisan drawing battle lines.
You began with your preferred narrative - "little ned girls harassed a dude who didn't deserve it" - and then assembled your evidence to support it, deploying the official statement as a key soldier in your army. That is the same thing the telegram denizens do. The exact same thing. You are outsourcing your critical thinking to people who don't deserve it.
self_made is himself an immigrant in the UK. I would be more surprised if he didn't subtly take the side of the "Authorities"/migrant party in this kind of incident.
Lay off the cheap ad hominems.
ok, I thought I deleted it almost inmediately but apparently it wasn't the case.
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