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 was adopting an exasperated attitude while dealing with SecureSignals specifically, whom I do not believe to be a dispassionate truth-seeker in this matter. I went back again and again to the "but if that's the most you can argue, why do you care so much?" angle not because it is or should be an all-purpose rejoinder to all questions about the Holocaust, but because SecureSignals in particular keeps acting as though the supposed holes in the conventional narrative, were they to be openly recognized by the public, would change… something. He's never terribly specific about what that "something" might be, but he clearly believes that his views on the Holocaust being widely circulated and vindicated should have a real impact on what people think about other topics of more immediate relevance. This is inconsistent with the motte of a narrow interest in facts and figures (the plausible "Hitler was indeed a genocidal monster, but as it turns out, he was a much less effective monster than usually portrayed"), and much more consistent with a bailey along the lines of "the Nazis were actually good, and never even dreamed of committing genocide, and anyway the Jews would have deserved it if they had" (which is a mixture of absurd and evil).
I don't make a habit of engaging in historiographical debates about the specifics of the Holocaust with apolitical truth-seekers who care about the facts for their own sake. I am, after all, not a historian. But if I did, I would talk to such people in a completely different tone. Moreover, I do not personally approve of censoring their earnest questions. That being said, I do have a lot more sympathy for the censorship advocates than you do, because, again, Nazi apologists trying to use Holocaust-related historical revisionism as a motte from which to settle the bailey of full-throated Nazi apologia are not an imaginary strawman. I just bandied thousands of words with one of them. So I don't think it's simply "paranoid". There are in fact bad actors here. Whether suppressing them is worth losing the trust of the genuine truth-seekers, that's a very different question. But the disingenuous bad actors exist; I was talking to one just now. You should not conflate my recognition of who and what he is to endorsement for indiscriminate censorship.
More options
Context Copy link