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 -
When thinking about this issues, I always try to find some old time equivalent and how would it go. For instance in the past would it be legal to make an advertisement in local news that next Tuesday there will be a meeting in a local club where anybody can discuss John Smith on the photo? Then you will have 20 people attending, drinking beer and talking shit about John. Is this something that you would consider as libel and prosecute local newspaper who printed such an advert? What if the advert was just printed paper that some person threw into mailboxes of the neighborhood? Is it some sort of punishable activity?
Now I understand that there is a difference in scale between digital and paper media, but I am still quite perplexed how quickly people bow to authoritarian powers if it is related to internet. For instance privacy of correspondence is a human right under article 12 of UN declaration of human rights. But apparently email and chat communication is arbitrarily not part of it. The same here - talking shit about somebody with friends in a pub is absolutely something that is normal human experience for millennia. But suddenly talking shit on the internet is some sort of punishable evil?
There is something that rubs me the wrong way, mostly that normalizing these heavy handed approaches may quickly turn from digital world to meat world.
The right to privacy of correspondence (article 12 UNHDR, article 8 ECHR, 4th amendment US Constitution) is a right against third-party snoopers including the government - not a right against the recipient forwarding the correspondence without permission. (Some countries protect confidential correspondence from unauthorised forwarding in specific, limited circumstances, but it was never the right protected by human rights codes)
Even in that sense, it has largely been lost, but I don't think that is because internet, I think it is because statists said "But muh terrorism" after 9-11 and normies didn't realise what they were giving up.
Seeing how badly most of EU wants to pass Chat Control, that right is deeply unpopular with the elites and soon to be abolished.
Your conversation isn't private when it's being automatically analysed for 'CSAM' by a complex technological system that's probably also soon going to do sentiment analysis and checking for disinformation.
How is text CSAM a big deal I'm never going to understand but then, I don't have to.
Such shitheads. If the wanted to protect kids, they could just mandate that children must use chat-controlled apps, and anyone else is free to use something else. But of course, it's about narrative control, not protecting children.
It's about controlling a narrative that, as a selling feature, increases the rate of child rape.
Sam Hyde is trivially correct about why this is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the "are we dating the same guy" case the old time equivalent is that enough people know each other, and talk to each other often enough, that someone will see your Jack out at a bar across town with some girl who isn't you and if they don't tell you they'll tell someone who will tell someone who will tell you.
Or in the case of "Tom's a serial date rapist," the old time equivalent is that you heard a rumor that Tom and Susie were parking up at the lookout and no one quite knows what happened but Susie missed school the next day and they stopped talking so it must have been something bad, because Susie was wearing Tommy's class ring all the time and she stopped right away.
The way you achieve something like this today is by trying to build a dense community around yourself, have lots of friends, talk to them a lot, and date only other people from within that community who also have lots of friends they talk to a lot.
I don't know. You can stand in the middle of some plaza and preach your thing - faith healing for COVID, hand out materials describing how Israel is controlling things etc. There may be thousands of people going around and you face no problem. As soon as you do it on Facebook, the situation turns. In fact this is what I am afraid of - that the norms from digital spaces will seep over to the meat world. Who prevents government to use drones and CCTV to process all the speech and video and then send police after you as if you committed your "offense" in digital world. Heck, with everybody having cell phones recording your speech it can easily turn that way without your awareness donglegate style.
More options
Context Copy link
There's also the problem of enough women being dumb enough to date guys who are waving an entire Chinese National Day display of red flags, but staunchly refuse to believe guy is gong to beat the crap out of them or that it's just his crazy, jealous, obsessed ex going around bad-mouthing poor innocent guy (I remember reading an account of a court case where a guy was credibly accused and convicted of being abusive to his ex, and his current girlfriend turned up to be a character witness for him. If you're at a trial for your snuggle-bunny beating the crap out of his last girl friend, what the hell are you doing?)
So there probably is a good opening for "am I dating Mr/Ms Crazy or Mr/Ms Cheater?" website to check out "I met this guy/gal online and I have some doubts, am I over-reacting?" but we can't have nice things because this is the modern Internet. (Yeah, women are crazy violent stalkers too).
Presumably, believing that she's lying or crazy.
I feel like I usually see "he's perfect and would never do that to me" +/- "except for that one/fortieth time" in the early stages with later stages being even more awful than that.
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