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 -
A noble effort. But hopeless. The first thread already demonstrated that priors were set by who you hated most: (1) females; (2) young hoodlums who bullied you; (3) white people.
This thread will not shift any priors.
Then why are we here?
Just to suffer.
Is this meant to be a reference to left-wing/anti-native British media bias?
It's meant to be a reference to the specific post I linked to, that said if you think the "Braveheart" narrative is likely to be true, and remain unmoved by official government statements, it's because you hate brown people.
I do not appreciate your dishonesty. That is not what I said, and it is not what I implied.
That's the impression I got at the time. Reviewing it now, I stand behind my interpretation.
Going through it line-by-line:
...to promote the official narrative that there was no sex crime occurring or at risk of occurring when she responded with an axe.
Their belief in the narrative (true or false) depends on their personal biases.
These people believe the girls were up to no good and fabricated the original assault. They believe that because they hate females and/or hoodlums, not any of the reporting.
These people believe the man was up to no good and committed the original assault. They believe that because they hate brown people, not any of the reporting.
...because (as above) priors are set by hate instead of information and argument.
It may not be what you meant to say, but I don't see a serious alternate reading of what you did say there.
More options
Context Copy link
10/10, best "Do as I say not as I do" jannie crashout yet. I always thought it'd be me, but I guess that's just how you are with everyone.
The difference is simple: I am not lying. And much as you like to characterize so much as a raised eyebrow from me as a "crashout," it's not so.
"You thought it'd be me" is projection. Despite your long history of trying to provoke me, I have been very even-handed and even generous with you. I used to try to point out that there was no need for your hostility, but that proved to be futile because you like hostility.
Had you a modicum of self-awareness, you would reconsider your engagement strategy and reevaluate your assumptions. I state this as an idle observation, not with any expectation or optimism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember that post. That was basically the implication I took from what you said. It seemed to be condescendingly dismissive towards the people believing the take that ended up being vindicated, and psychologizing them as holding that take because they were mysognist, racist losers.
Rereading it now, the "females" part strikes me as less clear, and possibly a dig at the people thinking the girls were just terrible feral youth, but I think phrasing it as "females" made me interpret it as sarcasm directed at the right-coded people on the Braveheart side, because I didn't think you would use that kind of language sincerely.
There were a lot of hot takes flying around when that incident happened, and most of them seemed to me to be entirely tribal- people deciding on the narrative based on, as I said, who they hated most. I tend to be a "wait and see" type of person because the quantity and quality of detail was lacking, making it very much a "choose your own narrative" scissors incident.
I might still self-identity as a liberal, but anyone who's been around here for a while would know better than to casually ascribe the most bad faith "woke" perspective to me. So it still surprises (and annoys) me when that's what people do.
FWIW, I didn't think you were being super woke, so much as rolling your eyes at a MAGA type of narrative (which did end up being largely correct, natch). Like I insinuated in the last post, I think it was some unfortunate phrasing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are lying.
You are not a mind reader and you're wrong. Given that I am calling @ArjinFermin a liar, you may believe it's open season to call "liar" but I can at least point to my post and say "the words you wrote are not the words I wrote." Generally calling people liar has a high burden of proof (Ie you must be able to demonstrate a provable lie. Charitably, @ArjinFerman might actually believe I meant what he claimed, but I do not believe this for reasons I explained in my other post). And indeed, another mod may disagree with my reasoning and tell me my own post was inappropriate - I admit having my words twisted and malinterpreted sometimes tests my equinamitiy.
If you jumped into a thread between other people to do this, I'd give you a ban, but I realize that would be inappropriate here, and I would not feel good about asking another mod to do it. Instead I will merely observe that this is the latest in your growing record of low effort antagonistic snarls, and warn you to stop doing this.
You did not explain your reasons for thinking he was lying, or at best you gave some extremely weak circumstantial evidence of this, before moving on to your main topic which was psychologizing about why. It was actually one of the better examples of Bulverism I've seen here.
More options
Context Copy link
Hilarious.
You are perfectly happy to call others liars, but even when you provide links, it's actually them who are pointing to the words that they wrote... that you linked! (but lied about what the words were)... and saying that it's obvious that your claims about them are not the words that they wrote. Of course, you refuse to engage with the words that were written, and just substitute your own to pretend like they said what you imagine them having said.
And when one actually goes through the words written, in detail, the conclusion is that you have directly contradicted your own words. You don't even argue that this isn't the case! You do the "upper lip curl, go silent" strategy. Of course, when you're called out on this, you lob personal attacks rather than make an argument about the words that were actually written.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Dishonesty" would require that I know what you meant, and deliberately chose to portray your comment as saying something else. I have no idea what else you could have been saying, and given that I linked your post for everyone else to see and read for themselves, it would be a very strange way to try and mislead people.
I do not buy your lack of comprehension.
If you had questions about what I meant or wanted to know what I meant, you could have asked me directly. Instead you constructed an uncharitable and inaccurate interpretation of my words and asserted them as fact. You do this because you are not interested in truth seeking or understanding, but "getting" people you dislike (me, in this case). You like to claim people said or believe things that fit your conception of them, in which you can comfortably slot them as "Enemy who has bad opinions" because that does not require honesty, civility, or respect, which are not things you value.
To be absolutely clear and direct, I did not say, did not mean, and do not believe " if you think the "Braveheart" narrative is likely to be true, and remain unmoved by official government statements, it's because you hate brown people."
You will stop asserting this.
As a relatively neutral observer, I honestly have no idea how else your post can be interpreted. This just seems to be the straightforward meaning of your words. A lot of people seem to have come to that exact conclusion, and no-one - yourself included - has offered a plausible alternative reading. At the very least, your intended meaning and how it differs from what's quoted above is clearly nowhere near as obvious as you seem to think.
An explanation of what you did mean would be the obvious next step, well before calling people liars for believing the words in front of them meant what they appeared to say. Especially coming from a (soon-to-be-ex?) moderator.
More options
Context Copy link
Hopefully you don't think that of me, so...
I interpreted the post AF linked as saying "everyone on theMotte prejudged this incident according to their hatred of women, hoodlums and/or brown people, and no evidence will have any effect". The only element of that that's actually kinder than what AF read it to mean was that you didn't appear to be applying this to non-Mottizens, but clearly AF himself is one so I understand his annoyance.
Like, okay, if that's not what you meant, fine - and AF himself, in this chain, has not actually called you a liar or insisted that you did mean the thing you're denying, just noted twice that he legitimately thought your comment to mean what he originally stated. The only people who've called others liars in this chain are you and @TowardsPanna, and I think you're both wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
Cool that you get to read my mind (edit: and criticize another poster for doing that mere 15 minutes later!), but I don't get to do a straightforward reading of the words you actually wrote. I didn't ask questions, because to me it seemed obvious. I literally don't know how else am I supposed to interpret "A noble effort. But hopeless. The first thread already demonstrated that priors were set by who you hated most: (1) females; (2) young hoodlums who bullied you; (3) brown people." other than to mean that people in the first thread formed their opinion based on their hatred of females, young hoodlums who bullied them, or brown people. If you want to clarify, feel free.
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