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 -
The timeline is important because there's little evidence that Rubiales is actually a "victim" of anything, nor is actually in danger of losing his job, until he decides that angry confrontation is the way to go. It's only after that moment that he actually faces real attempts to remove him. Before that, it's all speculation, online noise, and "we'll look into it". Stuff we've all heard before and often leads to not much at all. It's only after his speech on Friday (which could have had more detail but I chose to skip) that we start seeing petitions getting passed around, that FIFA gets serious, that the Spanish government starts announcing inquiries, that other Spanish players start making comments or talking about boycotts.
The true story is not in the media recycling the same content and punishing a man for a minor infraction, but in the behind the scenes pressure campaigns and PR attempts that seem to sidestep the actual human relationships involved. Note that Monday morning during the flight, Rubiales is already focused on saving his job rather than making real apologies, and he hasn't even been subject to a full media cycle yet! It's been like 6 hours.
Him deciding to fight was not protecting "real victims of assault". It was not an innocent man trying to keep his job from an online mob. It was an in-your-face political stump speech about how great, infallible, and perfect he was. It's the self-important, self-dealing soccer establishment applauding themselves for a job well done while making zero attempt to help the actual players who actually won the damn trophy.
I never called him a "victim" so I don't know who you are quoting. I would appreciate if you didn't construct your paragraphs around 'quotes' that I didn't write.
Regardless of that, reciting the timeline accurately does nothing to change the fact that your original point is not in any way affected by it since the conclusion you reach is close to antithetical to it. So how it is important is still a mystery. Unless, of course, my original assumption was just accurate. In which case I would like to ask you to be more plain with what you are advocating for, rather than trying to hide it under the guise that it's something other than SJW activism.
This is a really annoying argument. We only have the timeline of events as they transpired. That timeline is not proof that if he had done something differently that things would have gone better for him. Citing it as if it were is, again, annoying. There are plenty of examples of people who gave a heartfelt sincere apology to the beast and where then immediately eaten.
As far as I can tell Rubiales is just as emotionally intelligent and socially savvy as the people who want to get him. He is also just as hungry for power and cognizant of appearances. On that front he seems to be playing the game as well as you can. Asking such a person for a sincere apology is about as smart as expecting the SJW mob to forgive him.
After all, if he were really sorry, he would resign, right? ;)
Just want to second the use of "quotes" to emphasize words with heavy connotation or specific contextual meaning, this (along with parathesis for snippets of slightly tangential information or ideas) are writing habits I picked up from commenting on SSC, probably copying some smarter/cooler person I read there (the / thing is another one).
I do that too but I don't use quotations, I either use italics or 'apostrophes'. It's not that I don't understand this practice, it's that I can't engage with a person without making it clear that what they are quoting isn't actually a quote.
It's doubly important when the person is using the quotation as a springboard to make an argument when that argument isn't relevant to anything I've actually said. But it sure does look that way when they are using quotes to start off their spiel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not all quote marks are really quotes, even if people in the forum like calling people out with them a lot. I like using them to draw attention to phrases or words that people use (or I am about to use knowingly) with particular baggage or specific connotations. In this case, I'm referring to Rubiales' own word in his Friday speech.
I read the news a lot and could watch things sort of develop. The furor got absolutely worse Friday after the statement. Want at least some evidence? Look at Google Trends and you can see things start to die down on Wednesday/Thursday, and spike Friday and double Saturday when he's actually suspended by FIFA, an action that to me seemed to be rushed out to satisfy public outcry (considering it had only been Thursday they announced a look into it). The search interest clearly indicates that traffic about the topic actually surpasses the original news bump Friday/Saturday. This is true for most all phrases I plug in having to do with the news. The curve can even be more dramatic. I know that Google Trends isn't a perfect examination method but it does reflect a bit how much people care.
This isn't the result of an "SJW mob" out to fire him (to use an actual quote of yours), and coopted by internal enemies. It's real people being upset about Rubiales, for example, alleging that anyone upset about the kiss is actually a (another actual quote from Rubiales) "fake feminist", and an implicit allegation that he blames Hermoso for not supporting him more, and the fact that people are fucking applauding someone who is showing zero contrition and instead going on the attack. Why is he being applauded?? Actually why? This guy just brought an absolutely massive embarrassment on the entire organization singlehandedly, even if it was totally innocent, so how on earth is he somehow a hero? Those things rightfully triggered disgust and though I cannot prove it, I can certainly make a valid claim that his post-kiss behavior is a worse problem than the kiss.
Now, does all that imply that I'd be happy with FIFA or the government or someone else giving him a harsher punishment because of his post-kiss behavior and lack of contrition? That's a harder question to answer. I'm not really sure, to be quite honest. On its face, that does seem to be an unequal application of justice. But practically, it would make sense. That's partly why I brought up the point about how there are apparently lots of other problems and mistreatment that has been swept under the rug that he might deserve to lose his job for.
If these are not my supposed to be quotes from me then I am at a loss as to what the relevance of the paragraphs is.
Doubling down on your annoying argument won't make it any stronger. How would Google Trends look if he had made a public apology? Don't know. All I can tell is that the media gave Rubiales another cycle and made it a big news story. People heard the news and googled Rubiales.
On that front what Rubiales did might make a bigger media splash than doing one of those pathetic apologies that never help the one who makes them. But how that is making things "worse" is still a mystery. People got more angry and that's bad because people being angry is bad? OK, but from the perspective of Rubiales who wants to keep his job, I don't think he made things worse for himself. That is unless you are assuming that people would just accept the apology. Which, in light of how much he was apparently disliked, I'm doubtful of. And considering how poorly apologizing has worked when the SJW mob comes knocking, I'm even more doubtful.
Yes it is. None of the arguments you give following your statement in any way impact the truth value of it so I'm just not going to bother with more.
How can he be an embarrassment if he is being applauded? Maybe SJW's think he is embarrassing, but their worldview is rather distorted as compared to some dude listening to the news. I know from listening to my colleagues that the more they hear about his antics and the more he sticks to his guns, the more they like him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link