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 -
Are you sure about that? Leftist conspiracy theories are arguably much worse because they tend to be held by people in positions in power, compared to the powerless yokels who have right-wing conspiracy theories.
Example conspiracy theory: African-American test scores are the result of systematic racism. And the higher you go up in the Democratic Party structure, the more common this belief is.
Dingbats like Tucker and Candace, on the other hand, have low status audiences.
That's not exactly a "conspiracy" though, is it? It might be wrong-headed or incorrect, but where is the shadowy cabal who planned everything out?
Like, if the 2020's election was stolen, it was stolen by a specific group of bad people, who could, in theory, be rooted out or put on trial. I think believing false things about how the world works is slightly different from a conspiracy theory. There's probably some better word for it, at the very least.
Fair enough, and that was a bad example on my part. A better example is the Russiagate hoax. That's a conspiracy theory. And probably 90% of Democrats still believe it or pretend to.
I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two parties in terms of their ability to believe false things, even outlandish conspiracies. It's just that the left is able to put the imprimatur of respectability on things, thereby allowing high status people to maintain false beliefs long after its obvious they are false.
2016 election was stolen: Aww, you're sweet.
2020 election was stolen: Hello, HR
More options
Context Copy link
ESR's coinage of "prospiracy" might fit this case. There's no shadowy cabal of racists conspiring to squelch African-American test scores, but if there's e.g. a lot of racists in the education system who each neglect African-Americans (and who might admit this to each other after building trust, but don't need to discuss it with each other and wouldn't dare discuss it with non-racists) then (in that version of the theory, anyway) that could explain the observed gap.
IMHO, all other things being equal, believing in a prospiracy requires a lower burden of proof (and thus is more forgivable when it's a mistake) than believing in a large conspiracy. "Racists control public education" has some obvious contrary-evidence issues but it's not as bad as "a cabal of racists regularly meets to plot their control of public education".
If one conspirator breaks and admits their secrets to the public, the conspiracy would be revealed! The secrets would be out in the open! And depending on the size of the conspiracy, the biggest secret would be: how do you get that many people to keep a secret without anybody cracking earlier?
If one prospirator breaks and admits their secrets to the public ... not much would change, right? Everybody knows some people are jerks who are motivated by self-interest rather than principle, but that doesn't mean 90% or even 0.9% of people in similar positions will be jerks too. Just one bad apple, am-I-right? The "secret" is vastly more robust.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Republicans hold power approximately 50% of the time in the US. Like... uh... you do know who's president now, right?
Not a conspiracy, as I explained to FCfromSSC
They're big audiences though. Tucker and Candace are regularly near the top of the biggest podcasts in the US. They're very influential within MAGA.
And as he replied to, in detail, explaining that most of the examples in question did in fact require multiple people in positions of power coordinating in secret for malign purposes.
You're not quite as bad as magicalkittycat at ignoring counters to the things you claim, but you're getting there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link