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 -
Well, yeah, that's the problem. I mean, I already told you I literally have trouble figuring out exactly what you are accusing me of, and here you are returning almost two weeks later to go at it again! (I'm not saying you have a time limit on responding, but come on, I thought we'd both walked away from this one, and now I have to reread the whole thread to remember where we even were.)
I think I already apologized for accusing you of being a Kulak fan, and I honestly don't remember calling you a Soros conspiracy theorist. I suppose you have a link where I implied it or something. You're not a Soros conspiracy theorist. Are you happy?
Look, as I once said to you in private: what do you want? Is it really that specific post you have been hounding me about for years, that argument I had with @FCfromSSC? I have said repeatedly that I regret that exchange and have reconsidered how I expressed myself, even if don't repudiate the core thesis. So if "Admit you're wrong" is not what you're after, what are you after? You really just want to replay that particular argument again? After five goddamn years? Really?
Apologies. Work and STEM outreach have been busy, and I've been limiting politics-writing when in those environments even where I have idle time for the obvious reasons that are kinda my point. And then I'll realize half-way through a response that I'm relitigating stuff you clearly didn't want to litigate the first time, and have to start again.
I don't think a neutral observer would have read that as an apology, but I'll take it under the intent you meant if that's what you meant.
"I'll use a common public figure or trope and you object "I never mentioned George Soros." No, you didn't, but Soros-like social manipulation seems to be the sort of thing you are alleging."
And I'll spell out specifically that my claim was "I get lumped in with Soros conspiracy theorists".
Happy would be overstating things, since that wasn't the claim I made, but I'll take it in the spirit it was intended.
My problem has never been your tone, as I've said at length. I care about your core thesis. I think it's wrong, I think it's been wrong for years, and I've shouted in every way short of going full-caps at you about it. Literally, to quote my PM to you, "I would like to know which of us is right, and which is wrong. From you, I'd take a serious argument why you believe I'm wrong."
((Yes, I'm going to keep referencing the five-year-old post that, in its closest to a followup, specifically spelled out "gattsuru's list does not impress, but if I was wrong, he should be able to point this out in a few years", when I still think you're wrong and you've done less than nothing to even attempt to actually confront that list, or the specific claims you made then.))
I'd love to think otherwise! Whether it's that the lists of things I offer aren't actually happening or are gish gallops or are purely hypothetical, or that they don't seriously impact my freedom of speech or civil rights, or that if they do it's just social conformity not partly the state actions I've already linked, or that it's really going to just ebb and flow in way that actually leaves me whole or my enemies feeling genuine mirrors of my problems. But we don't do that discussion. I can't even get agreement on what level your thesis actually holds on long enough to debate the facts, and when I've attempted to draw out a literal branching graph of options, the closest we got was a thesis of "I still think the evidence does not say we are as far along down the slippery slope as you think we are".
What evidence? What point on the slippery slope? What could possibly change your mind, before it was too late?
But if we can't have that discussion, hell, I'd just take a serious engagement with the thing that brought you into this thread. You popped in to insist that it's a bad idea to make single bets, even at steeply favorable odds, and that no one's saying literally Hitler. Well, MadMonzer's willing to bet often, claimed the odds are wildly favorable, Arjin didn't demand anyone go all-in or even beat pizza money. Oh, and MadMonzer said specifically "10% chance that Trump is Hitler". Does this say anything? Do you have some other reason to believe that MadMonzer actually believes that number, when you yourself are saying that it's clearly absurd?
In that five-year-old post, how many of the things I have said wouldn't happen have happened? (Noting that I gave a time frame of 20 years, so we still both have time to be wrong.)
I already told you that I am less confident in my assertions than I was. The reason I am less confident is that what I see is that we are locked in a game of tit-for-tat-only-harder. Trump is unquestionably ratcheting up the retaliation for past misdeeds by Democrats. Assuming that the Republic does not die with this administration, eventually the Democrats will come to power again. I fully expect them to escalate (they are already bragging about how they are going to prosecute anyone who collaborated with Trump and ICE). I think that's bad, in case you're unclear. At some point we really are going to wind up in a failed dystopia, whether or not you believe we are already there. We will probably disagree about whether the starting point was during a Republican or Democratic administration, but if it happens during a Democratic one you can say I was wrong for all the satisfaction that gives you. Yes, we're clearly on a slippery slope. We're farther than I thought we'd be five years ago- but right now, we're on a slippery slope that Red tribe is pushing us down. (Yes, I know the response is "They started it, tit for tat is the proper game theory response," and that is how we keep going down the slope. No, I don't know what the exit looks like.)
If you want to cite some specific thing for me to respond to or agree with or rebut, I will do my best, but I do not think it is reasonable for you to demand I revisit a five-year-old post and answer all the questions you don't think I answered satisfactorily five years ago.
I was just being pedantic about poker, ffs. And also expressing my general dislike of the "Put money on it or you don't really believe this" form of argumentation.
I said "literally Hitler is absurd." That is my opinion. I did not say "no one's saying literally Hitler." Obviously there are people saying literally Hitler. I think they are wrong. Do you think you fairly characterized my position just now? Do you think the way you do things like that might contribute to my frustration and reluctance to engage with you point-by-point?
I am not MadMonzer. Don't get indignant that I lump you with KulakRevolt and then try to associate me with whatever other left-leaning person is in the thread.
I think there is a pedantic argument about whether "literally Hitler is absurd" and "a 10% chance of Trump suspending the Constitution is too high a probability" are the same statement, and I do not think they are, but if for the sake of argument I grant that they are (because I would stand by both statements), my reasons for believing MadMonzer believes that number is that I know that many, many leftists believe that number or a higher number, and they clearly sincerely believe it whether or not they are willing to put money on it. That their belief is often driven by hysteria and/or detached from actual facts does not mean they don't seriously believe it. How this applies to our five-year-old argument I think is pretty obvious, but that argument was never about whether I believed that you or @FCfromSSC really believed the things you were saying. Are you trying to debate me, now, about whether @MadMonzer (or liberals with TDS in general) really believe the things they are saying?
More options
Context Copy link
Here's something to help you set your expectations:
Hm. Do you think there would be any benefit pointing at the recent California Code Is Free Speech bans?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link