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 -
What about his article makes you believe he isn't being serious? Even if you disagree with him, the idea presented has a clear and coherent thesis. That is, that Kirk's legacy is one of conspiracism, of alleging a greater evil acting behind the scenes, and thus it's not surprising his own death is bogged down with conspiracies.
It seems to be you're defining trolling as "I don't like what he says" rather than by if the actual meat of his argument is serious or not.
He has had an honest conversation where he admits he just does things for clicks and money. I think it was Corfnas that talked about that. His earlier writings were much different. Then he changed.
It’s common with influencers. They are much different with the camera off than they are in person.
Hanania can be inflammatory in his writing, but that is different from his writing being a troll. But even if that's the case, being a troll doesn't mean it's not serious in the same way that saying "you fucking retard, diet coke is better than regular coke and this would be obvious if you had functional taste buds" is intended for inflammation and trolling and also a serious belief. I can't find anything that suggests an admittance he doesn't share serious beliefs.
So what about this article do you think is so far out there nonsensical that the only meaningful explanation is that it's unserious and the underlying idea should not be engaged with?
I 100% believe he doesn’t post serious beliefs. That’s why I call it trolling.
When you know the intelligent counter argument and likely believe the intelligent counter argument but post the inflammatory other opinion I consider it trolling.
Sure and what specifically about this article do you think shows his view is not serious?
Ah ok, we're circling back to he must be a troll because he says the thing you believe is dumb and wrong and don't like, instead of the smart thing that you do like because you're smart and think all smart things.
Refused to read his writing. And I do think some people prove themselves to be not worth reading. I do think he’s an amazingly talented writer who can have great insights. I won’t read him because I don’t believe he writes his true beliefs and writes to be inflammatory. I don’t believe a writer like that is worthy of my time. I want to have honest debates. Few people want that so he probably makes more money being inflammatory. I also don’t listen to Tucker Carlson or Candace Owen’s.
Most of the time I disagree with you. I’ll still read what you say because I think you are writing your true understanding of the world and perhaps will say something I didn’t think about or make me think about how I can express my view better. I’ll listen to AOC because I think she’s genuine and want to know why she thinks the way she does.
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