site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Oh cool, this is the second time I've had interpersonal experience of a discussion topic. Last one was my Eskimo brother on two degrees of separation, and now I'm down to one degree of separation. I've never been on the EA forums or kept up with their membership, but I knew Owen IRL decades ago. We were in the same ieado club, lol.

Suffice to say, I'm a lot more convinced of the "Autistic nerd thinks he's being friendly and helpful by offering his guest room, proceeds to get lied about by clout-chasers" narrative than the "Sex-pest" narrative.

Again, I don't think this is a case of "lied about by clout-chasers". He seems to have admitted that things happened as the bare account of it had it, but interpreted it in a different way (i.e. 'we were friends and I was experimenting with radical truthfulness so things like saying I was going to jerk off did happen') and that's something that makes idiot normies like me go "Why the fuck did you think telling an acquaintance that you were going to jerk off after she walked in the door was a good idea????"

I do think that is "autistic nerd" but it's also "Man, you really did need lessons in social interaction as to what is Too Much Information".

Again, I don't think this is a case of "lied about by clout-chasers". He seems to have admitted that things happened as the bare account of it had it,

Perhaps a better way to describe it is "technically true statements written about by clout chasers in a manner that causes reasonable people to infer totally false conclusions".

For example, here's one totally false conclusion drawn by someone I think you would agree is a fairly intelligent person drawing reasonable inferences from the facts presented:

How would you feel if you walked into an office for an interview and your potential boss (male) said "Just be a sec, I gotta go jerk off"?