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 -
I think it's sarcasm. Would you have accepted a no?
I see you're going to force me to do the comparative analysis. The style is different. He does not relate to you or anyone else as if he knew you, personally. Arguments-wise as well, he talks as if he just came from reddit and shows no familiarity with our way of thinking ("Sorry, I can't even parse this" "Like, literally, what are you talking about?"), his attitude is naively pedagogic. Darwin had long lost that innocence and was more into point-scoring.
It didn't look like sarcasm to me, but either way, obviously I would have accepted a no. It'd have been surprising, but I wouldn't see any reason for guesswho to lie about that, other than just trolling, I guess. Which could be what's happening with that comment, to be sure.
In terms of comparative analysis, I don't really think there's much of a way to do such a thing with anything approaching objectivity. Maybe ChatGPT, though then the question of validity arises. Again, from my own subjective analysis, the specific bad faith style looks very similar to Darwin and also quite different from the typical ways that a typical person with SJW leanings would make bad faith arguments. I suppose the only way to truly confirm would be to ask Darwin2500 on Reddit and if he says Yes, that'd be beyond a reasonable doubt at that point in my view. If he said No, then clearly there'd be some lying going on somewhere, and I'd probably lean towards it being different people, since Darwin2500, for all his bad faith, tried to stay away from blatant lies in that style and also his trolling tended to be content- and argument-based.
Edit: Also he did refer to me as if he knew me from Reddit, when he accused me of attacking his character on Reddit. Again, this could be a lie, especially since I don't remember attacking his character on Reddit but his belief about what conatitutes an attack on character seems to be different from mine.
I did talk to him by the time of the first discussion, and he denied omnipresence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link