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 -
Given the significant interest around the 2020 stolen election claims (definitely my favorite hobby horse topic), and the serious accusations that I have been weakmanning the overall category of election fraud claims, I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone interested in exposing the errors of my ways to a real-time discussion for a Bailey episode.
Here are the conditions I would suggest:
Are any of the above unreasonable or unfair? Do you have any suggested additions/changes?
I've been trying to set a conversation like this for years but haven't found any takers. @Dean, @jfk, @motteposting are the ones I know are sufficiently motivated and informed about the topic, and whom I'd most look forward to dissecting this topic with. Feel free to nominate anyone else you think would be good.
Major social media companies colluding together to prevent the voter from accessing vital information about a candidate is such a significant violation of democratic norms that it should be our entire focus when discussing election fraud. We had information hidden from us which indicated a candidate’s son was paid by the spy chief of our geopolitical rival, and a corrupt oligarch in the most important geopolitical region of Europe (Ukraine), and that the candidate met with many of the players paying his son, and that Biden-as-VP held Ukrainian aid hostage unless he fire the prosecutor that was investigating the corrupt company which was paying his son. (This oligarch went on to participate in one of the largest money laundering cases in American history, in a little discussed story, using his Chabad-affiliates — but this is a story for another post).
Right, I've repeatedly identified the motte-and-bailey tactic of making bombastic fraud-fraud claims about Dominion Voting or whatever but then shifting towards the weaker "the election was unfair" position when pressed for evidence on the initial claims. I don't want to tip the scales here and it's why I'm asking people to volunteer what they believe are the strongest claims worthy of attention. If someone wants to claim that the strongest argument in favor of the stolen election is the attempted suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story then that's fine and I'll take whatever I can get, but that's conceding the more dramatic claims as indefensible.
Again, I've been repeatedly accused of dishonesty and weakmanning on this topic, and I'm trying to do everything I can to facilitate them making their case that it's a valid allegation instead of a baseless smear.
That's not a motte-and-bailey tactic, that's something that happens whenever a lot of people have ideas about something. There are plenty of naive people who complain about Trump being bad because he eats his steak well done. If other people on the left don't care about steak, and criticize Trump on a different basis, that doesn't make it a motte-and-bailey where the bombastic claim is that Trump is bad for a totally ridiculous reason.
That's true! The problem is the lack of acknowledgements along the lines of "Yes, the Dominion Voting stuff is crazy but this other thing is worthwhile...". And I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but people go beyond refusing to acknowledge the retarded theories to accuse me of dishonesty/weakmanning. I suspect the lack of disavowals is part of the sanewashing tactic, where the crazy wing of any faction is kept close because their enthusiasm remains useful.
We're not going to get anything from such acknowledgements (which have in fact been given if not as clearly as you would like). No one on the "most safe and secure election ever" side is going to be more likely to seriously engage with the strongest claims because the person wanting to engage is willing to stipulate that other claims are "crazy".
Closing off motte-and-bailey acrobatics is a great way to raise one's credibility.
Perhaps, in the eyes of some sort of rationalist receptive observer. There aren't any of those around here.
Hopefully there are on this site, at least.
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