site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My knee jerk (anecdotally based and non-researched) reaction is that Brand is largely blameless. I say this from experience in the (now largely defunct) pick up community and social experience with men who have a notch count running into the triple figures. Via forums and the internet I've come across men who have claimed an absurd 4 figures; a very small fraction of whom I've believed.

If you took someone comparable in the public sphere like Gene Simmons of Kiss fame and canvassed his history of groupies in a witch hunt, I think it's highly likely you would find some girls with buyer's remorse. Also, I think any lothario running those numbers would have a situation under alcohol or other drugs that was borderline to a casual observer and clearly guilty to the modern inquistion.

Brand has become an alternative media icon in recent years which would have made him a target. I can't say he is innocent, but I can say there are incentives to destroy his reputation.

there are incentives to destroy his reputation.

Surely this is a fully general counter-argument.

I understand that I'm throwing out an argument that is largely unfalsifiable and you would be wise to be suspicious. As the kids say 'if you know, you know.'

No?

It's a fully general counter-argument to "accusers have no reason to lie". Which seems reasonable.