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 -
I wish you'd include a link to the old Ukraine discussions, as it would be nice to go through and downgrade my opinion of certain forum posters' forecasting ability relative to the confidence they projected in Ukraine's impending doom.
This forum has a lot of pro-Russian (or anti-Western is probably a better term for them) posters who are smart enough not to go full "just 2 more weeks!!!" but who still fall for a lot of the pro-Russian propaganda overall. I vaguely recall a post involving a new Russian missile that would be a wunderwaffe.
As always, Ukraine could experience upsets at any time, but the likelihood of that at any given point is relatively low compared to just muddling along as usual.
You fell head over heels for the obvious fake Selzer poll despite being tell you otherwise. Have you downgraded your forecasting ability?
Excuse you, "obvious" fake? Not at all, it was just muddled in what it was picking up! I have that from the horse's mouth 😁
I'm blocking Zeke since he mostly just posted ad hominems instead of actual arguments when responding to me. I can't see his comment. What does this have to do with Ukraine?
Blocking is petty, and announcing you have blocked someone is extremely petty. If you want to know what someone you have blocked is saying about/to you, you need to unblock him or view the board without being logged in.
Blocking people certainly isn't petty if they consistently resort to ad hominems. Attacking the speaker rather than their arguments ought to result in a mod action unless there are exceptional circumstances IMO since it almost always degenerates to heat > light, but that's not really enforced here. I wish there was something like Twitter's mute functionality as that's what I'd prefer over full blocking, but if blocking is the only thing I have then that's what I'll use.
But you're right, I should probably have just ignored this. Fruit from a rotten tree.
Yes it is. We just don't always agree with you what constitutes an attack. Many people are maximally sensitive to anything said to them, and want maximum charity when interpreting anything said by them.
If you consider your behavior in posts like these to be fine, then I would not consider you to have a very good definition of what constitutes an ad hominem
That selective edit is interesting. Here is the full context:
When you pull a stunt like that, literally chopping a piece out of a sentence to imply I said something quite different than what I did, it's hardly worth addressing the rest, but yes, I stand by everything I said in that post, and I have applied the same judgment to others. When you are arguing with someone, you are allowed to criticize, even harshly, the things they actually say.
Very bad form, and the way you slipped it in with the other quotes makes it clear that was calculated and intentional.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link