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 -
Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.
And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like, but like the black people who sincerely believe that cops hunt them in the streets or the trans and gay people who think they're going to be herded into camps any day now, being a fool duped by hysterical disinformation doesn't mean you don't actually believe what you're saying.
That's a reasonable take, but personally the guy is just a bit too preoccupied with spreadsheets about how his posts perform for me to take the content terribly seriously.
This is an issue I have with "charity" and "steelmanning", it often results in attacking someone in an attempt to defend them. Is being ignorant worse than being insincere, or is it the other way around? Either way MadMozer doesn't strike me as either ignorant nor sheltered.
Well, you're not wrong that "You're an idiot" is not necessarily nicer than "You're a liar." But it makes a difference whether someone is being ignorant or being insincere. If you want to argue with someone, you should generally assume they mean what they say. Ignorance should be something you can demonstrate with counterarguments. I get annoyed when people accuse me of lying because, besides not being a liar, what am I supposed to say? You can't read my mind and I can't prove my internal mental state.
That doesn't mean all arguments are genuine. There are definitely people here who argue disingenuously. Not just the obvious trolls, either. But it tends to be an accusation people throw sloppily because they're angry or outraged at the argument itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link