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 -
June 22 2020, PCGamer - Chris Avellone accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women
June 29 2021, PCGamer - Chris Avellone files libel suit over last year's sexual misconduct allegations
March 25 2023, Chris Avellone's blog - JOINT STATEMENT FROM KARISSA BARROWS, KELLY BRISTOL, AND CHRIS AVELLONE
March 25 2023, PCGamer - crickets
March 25 2023, Kotaku - crickets
It's remarkable that rpgcodex had the coverage that aged best.
Erik Kain working his beat as a based games journalist as well.
I'm not sure what more to add to this that hasn't already been said. Mostly I felt like summing up the entire event from primary sources for posterity and clarity, so that it's obvious who the liars are, and who the good faith actors are.
Christ.
It's good to know he didn't actually do it. Apparently any of it. And that justice, ultimately, was served.
Not so good that it took two years and a "seven figure" lawsuit to clear his name. I can hope that the relevant outlets get around to their mea culpa, but like you, I am not optimistic.
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.
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.
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.
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