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 -
But thats not actually what you did, rather than discussing my idea you started discussing me. That is the definition of ad-hominem. Claiming you aren't in an attempt to score points with an external audience is precisely what I mean when it comes to "waging the culture war" you aren't here to discuss ideas, you are apparently here to look good. I'm not going to answer your leading question, just because you stand past a pit of spikes and taunt me. If you have an actual argument you'd like to make I am all ears, but this "¡Andale, toro!" like I'm some bull that you get to use for entertainment with the crowd is tiresome. It is the definition of troll behavior.
This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
You continue to evade a foundational question, this time by trying to smuggle a change to the premise of the question in order to answer the question with a question, and leave with the final jab. So you were predicted on two of the three, so you shall be. Toro indeed.
That said, you have made a mistake in your attempted retort. A question that makes you look bad if you give a particular answer it is not necessarily a leading question. Some answers just reveal flaws the respondent would rather obfuscate. However, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with first principles.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
Considering I literally answered your question and you continue to claim I didn't, I'm going to say calling it evasion is just being deceitful. Answering in weird twisting logic to try and mime some Fae approach to argument is definitely a style.
Here is my answer again: This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not, then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
You 'answered' by trying to ignore the premise of the question- evidence that doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion- and then tried to insist you need to know ahead of time, at which point you transitioned to questioning future prediction. This is a deliberate inversion of the framing of something known into something not known, in order to insert your deflection of a question of future prediction.
Future prediction is not needed when you already have reviewed evidence to determine what it does or does not support. Removing evidence that neither supports or refutes an outcome is not bias towards one outcome, because it supports neither outcome.
Yours was a transparent dodge, for a transparent purpose of giving a non-answer after earlier concessions that you didn't want to answer the question. First the evasion you denied you were avoiding, before you conceded you weren't answering but insisted it was because it was a leading question, and now this attempt to change the question.
Thank you for the public demonstration. At this point I suspect anyone knows what your answer in that dark alley would be, however incriminating it might be for you. Feel free to take your last word and zinger if you'd like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link