site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35588 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

13
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To be accurate we don't KNOW he didn't do it. We just know he won a court case about it, so that his accusers (or their attorneys) had to draft said statement, which contradicts their earlier statements.

That may well mean he didn't but could mean there wasn't enough proof etc.

Just like people being found not guilty does not actually mean they are not guilty.

It does mean he should be treated as innocent though you probably still wouldn't want to find out your daughter was dating him.

I consider saying “he didn’t do it” to be an important part of treating him as innocent. It’s not fair to add a permanent caveat when the accusation turns out to be non-credible.

If my daughter is ever in such a position, I’ll keep in mind the cringe to which he admitted. No more, no less.

That sames...naive. Not in this case necessarily but in general. The accusation can be non credible but the behaviours the investigation uncovers can still be something warranting caution.

If the cops charge someone for murder but it turns out they're only an asshole who makes idle threats. They are STILL an asshole who makes idle threats. You can incorporate that information into how you treat them.

To be accurate we don't KNOW he didn't do it.

I did say rpgcodex had the best coverage. You should have read it.

During this time, Ms. Barrows mentioned that she could connect us with Chris Avellone and David Gaider, since she recently partied with them at Dragon Con (August 30th, 2012 — September 3rd, 2012). Even mentioning candidly that she had “made out with Chris the first night there.” Ms. Barrows would speak about Mr. Avellone very fondly as if there was a potential relationship there. She clearly liked him, and to us, it almost came across like they were dating (by listening to her). Ms. Barrows was more than willing and excited to set up an interview with Mr. Avellone.

On November 23rd of 2012 our group interviewed Chris Avellone via Skype. The people on the call were Chris Avellone, Karissa Barrows, Phil Hornshaw (currently an editor at GameSpot), Jakub Riedel, and myself (Jeff Johnson). The entire call was recorded. Pre-interview banter through interview, to post interview banter. During this call you can clearly hear Karissa’s affection and attraction to Chris. While the interview is public on YouTube, https://youtube.com/watch?v=lLj3YcpbV5U, I will also be releasing all relevant audio from the unreleased audio soon. This was the first time I had ever spoken with Mr. Avellone.

This during a period she claimed she was warning everyone off of Avallone for being a sex pest.

I am a longtime member of the Codex as it happens. But i would point out if you look at Chris's own admissions he apologised for inappropriate sexual propositions and said there was some truth to the accusations.

The position seems to be he did do most/all the things in question but with consent. That the accusers public views shifted on that doesn't actually prove they are lying.

They may well be and indeed it is probably most likely but we don't "know" it.

Did she rationalize the events because she liked/loved/was in awe of Chris? Once emotion fell away did she see the truth?

Or was it just a vendetta? That seems most likely but we don't know it. I'm not taking issue with Chris being exonerated, some of my most favorite games he was involved in. Just being overly sure in our knowledge.

  • -14

I'm really not buying into this mealy mouthed "We'll never really know" attitude. And I'm not buying into this framing of "Is she lying, or has her feelings towards a past event shifted over the years?" She told a material lie. To repeat.

Karissa said she witnessed Avellone act in a similar fashion with multiple other women at the event, and eventually reached the point where she, backed by two men who were also aware of his behavior, reported him to organizers, who immediately blacklisted him.

Here she is saying at the event where Avellone "assaulted" her, he was being such a sex pest she, as well as other witnesses, immediately had him blacklisted. And then here she is, in a recording, after this assault and public sex pestery that was so bad a gaggle of witnesses was able to compel a blacklisting.

During this time, Ms. Barrows mentioned that she could connect us with Chris Avellone and David Gaider, since she recently partied with them at Dragon Con (August 30th, 2012 — September 3rd, 2012). Even mentioning candidly that she had “made out with Chris the first night there.”

The discrepancy between these two accounts is not a matter of the mists of time altering our perspectives of past events. It's a material, bold faced lie. The gulf between them is irreconcilable and not due to the fragility of memory. And one of them is a contemporary recording of her, in her own words. Stop hedging.

And I'm not buying into this framing of "Is she lying, or has her feelings towards a past event shifted over the years?"

Even if that were true...so what tbh?

Or are we arguing that consent can not only be revoked during the act but long after?

Did you know many abuse victims lie that everything is ok? Especially when they have strong feelings towards the abuser? Do you know that they often overcompensate in front of other people?

Is it likely in this situation? Probably not. But its not impossible. I've worked with people who have been literally battered and still told their friends and family about how loving and wonderful the abuser was and helped them get jobs. So those statements are evidence she is lying, i agree. But they are not 100% proof. That is my point. That plus the settlement is strongly indicative. But people do settle because they feel its the best option even if they are in the right.

We roughly know she lied. But we cannot KNOW if the lie was the "he's great" part back then, or when she made the accusation or when she retracted the accusations after the settlement.

That is enough that Chris should not suffer consequences, but it isn't enough for us (in my view) to claim we have aboslute certainty.

Abuse victims are often not dealing with their emotions rationally, so if you see irrational outcomes it is not necessarily proof they are lying.

They may well be, and obviously the legal system has to err on the side of caution where credibility is concerned, but if you have dealt with abuse victims, you see a lot of lies in both directions depending and you can't necessarily discern the truth from them.

  • -19

You keep ignoring the material portion of the lie, and defaulting to some incoherent "no perfect victim" rhetoric. Address the material lie, or just stop.

She claimed she did a thing, a material, specific thing, in 2012 at Dragon Con. That she got Avellone blacklisted from the event. We then know she networked in the industry, and even pulled Avellone into events, based on their meeting at Dragon Con in 2012, because it's recorded. Forget whatever apparent mush brain sexual assault victims suffer from which you keep proposing. Why would Avellone network with a woman who got him banned from Dragon Con 2012 for being a sex pest, if that actually happened and she's not telling a bold faced material lie?

Who knows?

Just to be clear I would say i am 85% to 90% on Avellone being the victim here.

But people do weird things. Maybe she lied about Dragoncon banning but told the truth about the rest. Maybe Avellone was very forgiving or really wanted to take their make out session to the next level. Maybevshe is confus8ng Dragoncon 2012 for Unicorncon 2013 or a vivid hallucination from when she was high on mushrooms.

My point is not that it is highly likely that she is lying about the situation, but that we cannot know for sure because people do weird, apparently fucked up decision making all the time.

Also to be clear anyone who claims to be sure he is guilty is even more wrong in my opinion. But, I haven't seen anyone saying that here.

Though see my reply to the guy saying it might be 50/50 where i am arguing that he is underestimating the chance of Avellone's innocence.

  • -20

You're really grasping at straws. If there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt, would you be singing the "we can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE, guys" tune ?

Contrast that with your full-throated condemnation of his minor sins, which would have never come to light without the giant lies. Maybe he was on shrooms and had a vivid hallucination where he 'crossed the line'. Pray your every faux-pas never get put under the microscope like that.

Absolutely, above someone was arguing it was basically a coin toss on who to believe. I argued they were underestimating the likelihood of his innocence given the evidence.

I want Avellone to be innocent, hes been involved in some of my favorite games, and i would like him to get back to it.

But here of all places we should try to be clear about when we know things and when we can just be fairly, very or almost sure.

But i would point out if you look at Chris's own admissions he apologised for inappropriate sexual propositions and said there was some truth to the accusations.

The truth seems to be that they did in fact get drunk and then make out, which she later characterized as nonconsensual when it was very consensual.

I appreciate you taking the contrarian position here (really) but it seems like you're mostly just being anti-contrarian. I understand why you want to push back against the easy, uncharitable "Hah, bitches be lyin'!" narrative, but it sure looks like at least in this case, bitches do be lyin'.

More like "bitches do be lying" AND "Chris do be a bit of a pushy dick"

More nuance than anti-contrarian.

  • -15

But i would point out if you look at Chris's own admissions he apologised for inappropriate sexual propositions and said there was some truth to the accusations.

People make false confessions under duress: of those that Innocence Project Innocence exonerated, 25% confessed and 11% pleaded guilty. This is despite the fact that they were facing the death even with this admission.

Also worth noting that the leftist demand to "believe women" and avoid "victim blaming" and "slut shaming" basically constrains your options here.

Calling her a liar doesn't play well, admitting it happened but it was consensual will just be seen as validating part of the story.

But this was in an email to someone he was asking to back him up. And immediately after he crossed the line by saying he could help a girl out through oral sex.

We have his text messages showing what he himself admits to saying.

To be accurate we don't KNOW he didn't do it.

Yes, we also don't know that you didn't do it. There's a reason we don't ask people to prove negatives, particularly when they're accused of a crime.

Correct. Which is why we legally

treat people as innocent at that point. But that still doesn't mean you are gonna necessarily want OJ Simpson marrying your sister for example.

Accusations are not near enough evidence to lock someone up, they might be enough evidence to behave differently around that person.

  • -11

Accusations should be given as much weight as the cost of making the accusation and the benefit of making the accusation.

Seems unworkable in a social space. Its trivial for me to tell you Bob stole my wallet and i will certainly gain social status for revealing a thief.

The weight should probably be based on how well you know/trust me and how well you know/trust Bob and whether anyine else has said Bob is a thief or if i lie about people beaing thieves before?

Accusations are not near enough evidence to lock someone up, they might be enough evidence to behave differently around that person.

Should one also be more wary of Trump supporters, given the accusations leveled at them by Smollett?

Should one tread lightly near members of Phi Kappa Psi frat, in light of what Rolling Stone had to say about them?

You can be wary about what they said themselves. Take a look through the evidence Chris himself put out there. Including apologizing for sexually inappropriate behaviour.

He even says the accusations have some truth with embellishments in his emails asking for support. He probably osn't a sexual predator, but he does seem to have a habit of shitting where he eats and sometimes misjudging situations.

He doesn't seem to be a bad guy, just to be clear. But there is enough smoke he himself admits to that if my 25yo daughter said she had a date with him, i would be wary.

I would be wary because I don’t want my daughter dating a boorish fellow (which is different from dating a sexual abuser).

Sure, like i say he almost certainly is not a sexual predator in that regard.

Then again, they might be not. Particularly when they're made in the midst of a moral panic.

Indeed, but if you read what Chris himself has put out there,his behavior is not exactly exemplary. In his own evidence packet it contains things about him having to apologise about making sexual comments and advances inappropriately. Where he himself acknowledges it at the time.

Is he a "sexual predator"? Probably not. He is probably what would have been described as a cad or a rake. Should he have been fired? Probably not. Though maybe telling him to stop shitting where he eats would have been good advice for him to hear.

"Not exemplary" under which moral framework? I happen to be pretty trad when it comes to sex and relationships, so I might agree, but the kind of people attacking Avellone don't seem to be trad, and don't seem to have a coherent critique of fuckboys as a general concept.

I find the whole idea of "not shitting where you eat" bizarre, inhumane, and neurotic. Several of my friends got happily married off of a workplace relationship, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Ah lets clarify, pursuing a longterm relationship at work has risks but probably worth it.

But pursuing multiple short term entanglements at work exponentially increases the risks of some sort of fallout. Plenty of people do it of course, but the more break ups the more times you are rolling the dice.

Fair enough, I'll sign on to that.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats