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 -
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.
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.
@Amadan did explain his reason for thinking @ArjinFerman was lying (that if he was unsure what Amadan meant he would have asked).
That reason was just bad, as it excluded the option of "AF was confident in his interpretation, so he didn't ask".
Thus, my calling it "extremely weak circumstantial evidence". (It's not, for example, like he caught Arjin in a contradiction or anything like that.) I think we're agreeing on the basic facts and just assigning somewhat different descriptions to them.
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