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 -
What is the legal harm here, is the question that @faceh asked. Mind you I disagree with faceh, I think the harm here is pretty obvious even from a legal point of view since defamation per se usually covers allegations of sexual misconduct in as well (but as I said elsewhere I'm not a legal expert here and could be completely wrong). Please try to respond to the argument faceh is actually making instead of devolving into mocking and sarcasm.
Okay, so I burned down faceh's house and broke faceh's legs and stole all faceh's money in their bank account, but what is the legal harm here? Was any harm even done if there's no legal harm?
I mean, I can run you through the entire philosophical underpinnings of the Anglo Legal Tradition that explains the "harms" that, e.g. physically damaging a person's body, or removing funds they 'earned' without their permission, or demolishing objects that belong to them entail.
I did go to school for that after all.
But somehow I think you'd be nonplussed.
I'm not nonplussed. I can recognise "heh heh my chance to be an edgelord" when I see it.
Look, I'll make this clear, as that is the spirit of this whole forum:
I do not care about being an edgelord, I do not care if you are offended, or if you are flattered. I care about being correct.
Edgelords end up being correct in some cases because they can speak on matters that polite people will carefully ignore.
Being correct is not a necessary condition for being an edgelord, however.
If my being (mostly) correct makes you think I'm an edgelord, whatever. I hold a ton of other opinions that are 'edgy' to some crowds but very normal in others. I'm not trying to shock or offend anyone.
If anything, its "heh heh my chance to be a high decoupler." But even that isn't really accurate. Being a decoupler is also adaptive in the legal field, though.
If you want me to shut up about this topic; or ideally, you want me to come around to your side and agree that you're correct, there's plenty you can do.
I personally keep trying to find data that disagrees with me. The unfortunate truth is the more I look I keep stumbling across more data that suggests the other data is accurate and my position is correct.
Point out where my analysis is flawed. I'm taking good data and misinterpreting it, or missing a lot of context, or am engaging in clearly biased/motivated reasoning.
Point out where my premises are flawed.
Show me a superior theory that is still supported by good data.
If its NOT the case that women have gotten progressively less appealing to men, less mentally stable, more antisocial, more unpleasant and unhappy, and that this seems uncorrelated to male behavior...
Well, what is the competing interpretation?
Point out a solution that I'm missing, or explain how the problem isn't a problem, or the problem will go away on its own.
Point out actual counterexamples that show my position is not a sufficient explanation of the observed data/phenomenon.
Basically, I'm sitting here with data I think is mostly solid, all pointing in the same direction, with a general theory/interpretation of it that completely explains the data I'm seeing, and suggests particular solutions to the nature of the problem.
And EVERY TIME I ENGAGE WITH SOMEONE WHO THINKS I'M WRONG, they utterly fail to undermine or effectively attack any pillar on which I've formed this belief. Its all argument from some position of personal belief that doesn't appear to be informed by true facts in the world, and often is based on experience that is utterly outdated from a time before the problem manifested in earnest (read: older than 10 years, before dating apps arose).
I remain open to being persuaded. But I will simply no sell the social pressure and shaming attempts. I do not care if you think its 'cringe,' I do not hold your (or anyone elses') opinion of me in high enough regard for that to matter.
If you find this personally discomfiting I'm 'sorry' but this is one of the few places on the internet where social pressure is not a defining variable in how our discourse proceeds. I want you to come back with an earth-shattering insight that proves this part of my worldview incorrect. I will not respond to attempts to prove my worldview 'icky,' or 'unpopular' or 'impolite' or 'just c'mon dude really how can you say that?'
You're convinced you're right. I'm convinced I'm right. I don't think we can go much further on from here, apart from butting heads and drawing the ire of the mods.
Hot button topics are hot, and get people hot under the collar. And when I'm hot, I react with heat.
I'm convinced I'm less wrong than you are, that's the extent of my claim. I'm surely still wrong in some ways.
If you have any articulate reason to believe you're right, I would view your logic and arguments with interest.
But if not, then I will continue to present my arguments in ways that will hopefully convince the other readers that you are wrong, OR inspire one of them to bring forward an insight.
If neither you nor I are going to learn anything from this, well, I'm satisfied with some third party learning from me.
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
Not to mansplain your own violent revenge fantasy back to you—but you do know that as a middle aged woman, an attempt at breaking @faceh's legs would almost certainly result in a reverse uno card getting quickly played against you? Or for that matter, such an attempt against any man in this thread who you wish to "[go] nuclear" on for being insufficiently reverential toward girls and women, but especially against one with an MMA background.
Granted, perhaps the hidden premise is that he's already cooked like Anakin by the housefire but with legs still intact before the knee-breaking. Either way, what a curious toughgal LARP.
Didn't we have a distinction between rhetorical leg-breaking and actual leg-breaking on here when it came to comments? Anyway, no of course I can't physically break his legs. But it's a hypothetical: we all recognise the harm done by physical violence, nobody would attempt to defend it by "but is it legal offence, is legal harm done?"
Same with shaming and humiliating a minor child by producing lewd and fake images of her. If you really need "but is it legal harm, otherwise it doesn't count", then I submit you are not part of civilised human society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Legally, you committed several clear and well established crimes (arson, battery, theft) that caused clear and well established harm, both in the legal and moral sense (loss of the house, medical bills for the legs, loss of the money in the account).
Faceh never argued that there was never any moral harm, and I doubt he believes that there wasn't any. But what was done in the article doesn't clearly and neatly fit under any existing legal framework like revenge porn laws and defamation laws. I (and others) think it likely falls under defamation, but other legal precedents like Fallwell v. Hustler make that unclear so we'd likely need some court cases or new statutes to establish a clear precedent.
So instead of being snarky and sarcastic to faceh, you could make an argument like "I think this behavior falls under [existing legal framework] because X" or "I don't think it fits under existing legal frameworks but legislatures could make it illegal without running afoul of [the first amendment/existing precedent/whatever] because X." It really isn't hard, you're just choosing to react with snark and sarcasm instead of an actual argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link