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 -
Come on. You're doing the thing that every edgy leftist is doing, and pretending that their not-so-subtle mockery wasn't concealing their glee at getting him. It does not convince, no more than 'in minecraft' is a defense against conspiracy. No comedian ever went on television and said that George Floyd was probably killed by a commie, and certainly no con was going around saying he deserved to die because he punched a pregnant woman (which is something he actually did.)
And yet, Kirk's assassination is deemed his own fault because of some amorphous harm to leftist causes, or something.
I'm not stupid. I can see the winks and the smiles. Your argument is unconvincing and insults the intelligence of anyone credulous enough to extend you the benefit of the doubt. The people who called him a Nazi have blood on their hands. People who use that word to rile up extremists to kill their political opposition have blood on their hands. If this isn't stoastic terrorism, it is at the very least 'turbulent priest' levels of wishcasting.
It is not too far to suggest that you have some infinitesimal part of his blood on your hands.
"If I substitute what you're saying with this imaginary thing you didn't say, it's just like you said the imaginary thing"
Yeah I guess so.
Damn, not only are words dangerous they can kill too?
Not a thing. It's never been a thing. You can tell because it's a modern invention for something that if it was real, should have been an established concept already. It's what gets said when people can't claim incitement (a legal term with actual standards) but still wanna whine about name calling or insults.
If you can't see that the memes about Kirk postmortem come from the desire to rile up the genuinely aggrieved right - that you stubbornly insist that the fig leaf is an burka - then there's no point to arguing with you. We simply don't share the same reality. You may skirt the rules of the Motte in doing what you're doing, but I refuse to let you bait me any further. Even if I did write a well-written, precisely worded argument, you'd just duck out and say that you didn't have time in your busy life to respond.
I'll merely reiterate what FCfromSSC said already, and add on: it's easy to win arguments when you run around the field with the goalposts. Or, in other words, you have already contradicted your past positions, and it's hard to see if you have any principles whatsover.
Yes I live in the world where the things I say mean the things I say, and you live in the world where you can just imagine stuff and it's as equally representative of me as my actual words. What meaningful conversation can be had then?
You literally called me a Nazi. Did you meant that when you said that? Here, I'll link it again for your convenience.
So, taking this new principle of yours you seem to have found, when you said this, you meant it, honestly and earnestly. What did you mean by that? What could you possibly mean? Please, explain yourself. Elaborate in detail. Let's suppose that you're right. I am a fascist. If a leftist radical killed me, would you be overtly bothered? Would you engage in the same minimizations and evasions you're doing here? Please. Do clarify, if you have the time.
Surely, if Kirk the nonnazi is a matter of humorous anecdote, an actual Nazi would be quite funny!
For I live in the real world too, and I don't have to take your prepositions naively on their face. You twist yourself into pretzels trying to win the argument. If you mean what you say you mean, and not just as political polemic, I must hold you to account. I asked you this question almost a year ago, and you've never answered. You've never apologized, either. I'd take that as well, because in my reality, calling someone who isn't a Nazi a Nazi is an insult.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
You said
Do you still agree it's an understandable reaction to be a Nazi? I live in the world where I take your words as you say them.
Now maybe you were just joking and I misunderstood it, fair enough. Common autism thing after all, exacerbated by the internet. But the wording doesn't seem intended as humor.
No, it is not. And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi. An argument so facile and childish that it was a meme back in the usenet days (argumentum ad Hitlerum.)
I am pretty sure that this forum is filled with the neurodivergent, and I had made myself pretty well understood to them. That I was making a figure of speech: that I was not literally speaking for myself, but making rhetorical flourish to illustrate the widening of the Overton window.
That you jumped on the superficial elements of that argument to discredit me is not an error on my part or autism. It's a you thing. So, again. What did you mean by that? What should be done with Nazis? Tell me what your beliefs are. Stop evading the question. If you have no beliefs about Nazis, then why is being one bad? Why would wearing Nazi tattoos be bad, or having a swastika on a flag?
If I hold you to your own standards, should I take your words as you say them? Or do you not believe that about yourself?
I will actually credit autism here: I am hyperfixating on it, until I get a proper answer.
We can actually check this, thankfully you even linked it. Let's see what I said.
I said
"Rather than ask for clarification". Hmm, I wonder what "so are you saying you're a Nazi then?" is. Is that a question mark I see? It's literally an ask for clarification, because what I saw was "it's understandable reaction (to say) ... I might as well be (a Nazi)".
You either misread it (fair enough I misread too sometimes), are functionally illiterate, or are not being serious.
Are you being serious?
Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.
In this very response, in the last sentence, you have a descalation, a insult, and a sneer. If I call you out on it, you'll focus on the first part (while conveniently leaving out the other two.) Like how you exclude the last sentence of 'Add another on the pile of growing unashamed Nazism'. The second sentence clarifies what you meant.
You're not fooling anyone.
I'm going to disengage from this conversation because you're clearly trying to ragebait me. I do not understand how this behavior is acceptable to the moderators.
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