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 -
Military technology does not lend itself to a sources-cited I-make-my-claims you-make-yours open debate. So I’m not sure I have much to add here in the good nature of this forum. But I can tell you that you are completely wrong. I can’t really convince you of that when again we’re talking about military secrets. So it would be easier if you said you don’t trust Trump, or the government in general if you prefer, because then we’ve reduced the argument to its real essence. Otherwise I can’t say very much productively, because our priors about US military capabilities are wildly far apart.
Well, that’s not really what I’m concerned about, because this isn’t really about whether you as an individual are arguing in good faith. (And I assume you are.)
This story doesn’t just fall out of the sky and then journalists put on their truth suits and we sit around debating what it all means. Every phase of these stories are political and carry political connotations. “War crime?” Nobody in the public knows what that means or how important that is, so someone has to pick a few pieces of context to give that meaning. “Anonymous sources?” Someone has to stake some credibility asserting that these people are telling the truth, not those other people making denials. “Fishermen” Now we need part of this story to deny Trump’s / Hegseth’s determination that these are narcoterrorists, because the story is a non-story if it’s accepted on Trump’s terms.
Every part of this story involves relying on assumptions made by people acting out of political motives. Moreover, many of these political actors don’t care when we do it in Ukraine, supported the Iraq War, allowed millions of illegal immigrants at the border, etc. Many of these same journalists and senators pushed hoaxes about Trump and Russia, Kavanaugh, January 6 and 2020, Corona, etc. Why should I take them at their word?
So no this isn’t about your good faith as an individual. I’m calling bad faith on the entire media complex that reifies this as a story I have to care about, as though I’m somehow a hypocrite if I don’t jump through exactly the right rhetorical proofs while denying that Hegseth did anything wrong. Especially today, a day later, as the New York Times reports that WaPo got the story wrong, I feel increasingly good about my priors and attitude toward the latest anti-Trump hoax.
Candace Owen’s is reporting today that the French government is trying to have her killed. Should we kick France out of NATO? Is Israel behind it? Actually it’s ok to just call that one bullshit
More options
Context Copy link