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 -
Because it's a copypasta template-meme. In the original the tone contrasts with the frivolity of the subject-matter, but swapping that out for a more serious-sounding subject makes that part not work as well. Both are expressing exaggerated contempt towards someone saying something unremarkable as if it's remarkable ("I only had an iced coffee to eat today" and "A Jew's weird apocalyptic cult is overly universalist and hangs out with the outcasts of society") but the second makes the exaggeration less obvious.
I think I've seen you link this image several places, and every time I don't see any connection. There's no similarity between this 'template' and what Scott says. A copypasta means you copy and paste, maybe with minor alterations.
It's largely the same wording with the subject swapped out, same as these:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/should-we-tell-everyone-should-we-throw-a-party-should-we-invite-bella-hadid
Like many of those examples it isn't completely identical, it doesn't include the "should we tell everyone", doesn't elongate the "Oh", and adds "you" to "throw a party", but it's obviously still based on the template.
Gotcha, I see the connection better now.
It seems like a misapplication of the template though. The point of it seems to be to mock someone's enthusiasm for a topic or their willingness to share an opinion that nobody else cares about. Scott is adding in a totally different aspect with his comparison between EA and Christianity. It ends up as a mixed metaphor which I think is why so many are confused by it.
The shared element is that both "only had an iced coffee to eat today" and "worried about Jew's apocalyptic cult that consorts with prostitutes and preaches universalist morality" are implicitly being presented as remarkable by the fictional interlocutor but are actually mundane and uninteresting because they happen all the time (where all the time in the second case means at least twice). It does add a major new element with the comparison though, which makes that less clear.
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