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 -
Are you going to link the article this is from? It appears to be a comment on this article.
Edit: clarity
Just like the last alt used to (“motteposter”). I think he decided to move on to the next one, he isn’t maintaining kayfabe, this is far from his usual pearl-clutching progressive persona. Witness this, DR doubters, @coffee_enjoyer , @FirmWeird , so at least your priors will be in the right place when the next game begins.
edit: Might want to rethink what you thought you knew more generally. If you fell for this, it could be that most of the arguments you thought you won decisively was just one of your own letting you win to boost your confidence. Your ideology should pay for deceiving you and others by projecting this fake image.
DR doubters? Dissident right? I mentioned previously that it was an open question, and it was given that people were actually talking about it and discussing it. Here he just straightforwardly includes "we" when talking about white nationalists which really gives the game away and closes the question, but it isn't like this is particularly surprising. The main argument I had in my head against him being a troll was just that he was particularly bad at it (if I was going to troll under the name "JewDefender" I'd just be an incredibly obnoxious pro-Israel partisan with insanely obvious double standards, and who makes arguments with big glaring flaws that strengthen the WN cause when defeated).
I'm not rethinking what I know generally because I followed the rules and mores on this forum about assuming hidden intentions on the part of other people. You also don't seem to know what my ideology is or who counts as "one of my own" - I'm only an antisemite in the sense that I don't support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and think that a lot of the things they've done are utterly heinous (white phosphorus usage in civilian areas is something I will very consistently condemn). That said, most of my arguments on here tend to be on the topics of Trump, environmentalism and EROEI more than anything else.
If you think I won any arguments because the other side let me win to boost my confidence, please let me know and point these arguments out - I don't have my profile locked down, you're free to go looking through my history to find instances of this happening... and I'm going to expect you to actually do so if you're making an accusation like that.
More options
Context Copy link
“You were potentially deceived by a poster trying to manipulate the forum, therefore it was your ideology that deceived you” is an impressively silly thought.
I don’t know what’s going on with the OP poster. The world’s worst crypto- white supremacist? The opposite, attempting to get the topic banned? Someone doing “intelligence gathering” on users who agree with this or that? Whatever it is, it’s obviously annoying. Maybe mods should start using AI to check posting styles and ban the next alts.
He did it for your ideology, so yes, your ideology did it to you. If you valued the truth more than your ideology, you’d make it pay. But more important to me than the relative worth of random ideologies is: if we all counted his dishonesty as a demerit against his WN ideology, he would finally shut the fuck up (since his motivation is to make it look good).
But you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater - this approach is bad and leads to bad outcomes even when people aren't actively fucking with it. You're giving random bad faith actors an opening that grants them astonishing amount of power and influence over what you believe.
If you disagree, let me know - "fuckduck9000defender" seems to be an available account, and if you think people acting like shitheads in support of one particular ideology is a mark against that ideology, you're going to be changing your mind on everything real soon.
More options
Context Copy link
This itself opens up an obvious attack vector.
We’ll cross that vector when we reach that plane. He has successfully promoted his ideology by abusing the sub’s charity so far. We are way out of balance, too trusting, and he has been defecting at zero cost. Of course if you let in a defector in a theoretically curated always-cooperate club he’s going to make bank. We don’t need to condemn his ideology all equally and unequivocally for it, it would be enough if we imposed enough costs that he would be unsure whether his actions help or harm his ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is non-sequitur and nonsensical. Ideologies are true or false completely independent of any random bad actors on random forums. Someone “doing something for your ideology” does not negate an ideology, not even 0.0001% of its validity or lack thereof.
And what makes you think he isn’t anticipating this?
So far he has only succeeded in annoying the user base, making them more reluctant to post and engage in anything WN-related. If he were actually invested in promoting WN he would immediately stop posting and just upvote SS or something.
I'm not talking about some alabaman WN who’s never heard of him, I'm talking about you, reader of this forum. Your view is shaped, in this case corrupted, by what you read here.
Because it isn’t what happened the previous eight thousand times he did this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where are the people arguing against (white) nationalism?
There seems to be a general refusal to ever defend multiculturalism as the Western world spends billions refereeing border disputes between people one can hardly tell apart.
You don’t see many naive defenses of multiculturalism or calling anything to the left of stalin, nazi, here, but one side’s specific argument being absent or even proven incorrect, does not make white nationalism, as advocated by DR-aligned posters, correct. You see a lot of hypocrisy type arguments here ‘if oppressed identity politics are legitimate, then so are white/oppressor identity politics’, which, yeah, I more or less agree with. But after that, they start to resort to the same postmodern tricks as their opposition, calling whites’ ‘false consciousness’ the result of manipulation by (((elites))), or of some inherent mysterious quality of whiteness, which somehow makes them both flawed and superior.
Anyway that’s not the point: if your worldview, whatever it might be, has been corrupted by deception, then when the deception is uncovered, your worldview should be corrected, even over-corrected (to account for as yet undiscovered deceptions), back to an original pristine state.
What does that even mean? What is the original pristine state?
I don't think anybody actually formulates a worldview based on null hypothesis or something like 'out of all Y arguments, X have been disproved, therefore I only retain as true Z until disproven'.
What do you even mean by deception? Is the socratic method deception?
I have met plenty of white nationalists but I don't think I've met a supremacist. While some will argue that white people are superior due to X, Y, Z, they usually concede that they are not flawless, that they are currently as a people on the backfoot of history, a shadow of their former glory. Hence the need to organize as a group 'white people' or whatever other denomination they may give themselves.
They usually look to the past (RETVRN), to some previous state of existence of 'white people' as a group that was superior to what it is now. Plenty of them are also able to acknowledge virtue in members of other groups, whether they call them 'honorary aryans' or 'one of the good ones', or even acknowledge an entire group (ie Jared Taylor is fluent in Japanese and has cordial discussions with Japanese people who agree with him that huwyte people should be able to live in homogeneous groups if they so choose).
It's kind of a flavor thing, some people like vanilla over chocolate, does not mean vanilla or chocolate are objectively superior.
What do you think we are we talking about? "jewdefender"'s lies. He manufactured hundreds of fake, low-quality debates here that were designed to look like the WN side won. If you bought into this, took this as evidence of the quality of WN arguments, you have been deceived. He also tricked you into reading way more WN lit than you would have if he’d been honest. The original pristine state is when your opinions come from observing real debates and reading stuff organically. We all heavily rely on the honesty of others to form an accurate view of the world. Socratic questioning does not impair this process, JD's lies do.
He didn't really manufacture anything as from what I recall he never really bothered replying to comments. Somebody who only drops links or excerpts of other people's opinions with one line of 'what do you guys think of this literally-who-WN I just fished, aren't WN bad?' strikes me as prime 'low effort' posting. As far as I know, the guy hasn't even expressed a single opinion. Just noise. What's interesting is when people who put a little bit of effort reacted to the material, but there's not much to go from.
Where are the real debates including white nationalists? Where are the lie-free sources?
It seems to me that democracy is about caring about what the billionaires who own the media tell us to care about, and to rubberstamp these billionaires' point-of-views.
There is no pristine state in such an environment.
I saw him get into an extended conversation with SecureSignals. You can't verify that though, because he was deleting all his comments after a day or so. Not something typically done by low-effort but well-intentioned posters, if you ask me.
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
I think it would help if we could identify users with a private profile and habitual post deleters without having to click into their profile.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If he linked the original post his game would be a little too obvious even for the quokkas on the mod team.
Without this guy, even though (as many, not just you, have noted) he’s a troll, we’d be back to the usual conversations about trans bathrooms, abortion, guns and childhood transition making up 70% of regular threads, and those were in many ways played out discussion topics by the end of the last Bush administration.
It's not like we can't talk about other things, we just don't as much.
This is why I'd like a BLR back, maybe just with those topics outright banned, as more seeds for discussion on a variety of topics.
More options
Context Copy link
There's also the perennial Motte favorite of a person coming in to whine and consensus build about how things are going to shit and we have to do <blah blah blah> or else the evil political opponents will destroy us all, worded in such a way as to just barely slip past the site's moderation standards.
More options
Context Copy link
I know that there is a tendency for some topics, in some weeks, to dominate, but I fail to understand this critique.
I'm frequently impressed with the depth, breadth and back and forth of some of the discussion I've seen here. Even on familiar topics, some of the ideas are frame breaking enough they lead me to question some unexamined prior.
Even the HBD and white nationalism stuff has merit in uncovering widely held views and pointing to the critique of liberalism moment we are in.
Also, as a majority single issue focus poster, it's called culture war and I resent people telling me to move on just because they have reached their peace. I'm sure you have issues that stir you and there's a gate-keepy flavour with pointing out topics that are 'overdone' that triggers me back to days of college, where no-one at parties wanted to talk philosophy with me...
I recognise some stuff gets repeated and may feel overdone, but it's easy to minimise main threads. I think even in frequently posted issues, there can be new levels of analysis/synthesis that evolve over time.
More options
Context Copy link
The variety of posts both down thread and last week would suggest otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
Hard nope.
SecureSignals is getting modded for one issue posting, this guy is doing the exact same thing, except dishonestly. Ban for life.
Concretely, I thought the Aporia article he posted was a perfectly reasonable thing to post.
More options
Context Copy link
The mods take an extreme light touch with SS, he’s still here years later and still largely single-issue posting, just not exclusively in top-level threads. And the main reason he gets modded is that he makes the same arguments in every Holocaust denial thread but when actually interrogated always disappears when Stefferi or whoever effortposts a quality rebuttal to his arguments and allusions.
This guy, by contrast, is more ‘just asking questions’ rather than making an argument. Obviously it’s still trolling in a particular direction, there’s no doubt about it, but it’s a less objectionable grift than posting propaganda and running away when a decent counterargument presents itself.
I'm not criticizing the mods, I think SS should bite the bullet and post about literally anything else, every once in a while, and if there's no other subject in the world that makes him tick as a human, he should probably take that as a cue to think about his life long and hard.
I'm criticizing you for encouraging JD, when all he's doing is being a dishonest version of SS.
I will.
Situations like this are what ultimately lead to my falling out with Zorba and Trace and they don't seem to have learned anything in the interim. We kept getting into arguments in modmail where they'd be like; You can't just assume that "u/ArgleBargle456 is ban evading because he showed up the morning after /u/ArgleBargle123 got banned." and "Yes /u/soandso is very obviously pushing an agenda and consistently bringing the quality of the conversation down but that's not a reason to take action against them" and I finally ran out of patience. If blatant ban evasion and clearly violating the foundations of the sub are not reasons to mod someone, what is even the point of moderating anyone?
Like you say, this guy's just a less honest version of SS. and as @fuckduck9000 points out, keeping him around is effectively the worst of both worlds.
There's something to be said for "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to banning, but posters should err on the side of not feeding trolls, even if that results in some false positives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose part of me is curious whether all our replies to JD/motteposter/other alts are going to end up on SneerClub one day, or whether it’s some other kind of troll.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, if you want diverse content, just allow low-effort tops. If you want honesty, let SS and co be. Tolerating this guy is the worst of all worlds. Litters the sub with low-quality fake dogpiling arguments about a subject the mods apparently don’t want to see.
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