site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On fakes and faking:

There are a few interesting patterns I’ve seen regarding discourse around certain things being “fake,” or that certain people are “faking” or have “faked” something, wherein one finds distinct claims being either accidentally mistaken or deliberately conflated. And while there are definite culture war examples — sometimes in multiple areas — my initial examples are going to be less so.

[1.] “Person X is faking (very real) condition Y” versus “Condition Y is fake”:

A notable fictional example is in the South Park episode “Le Petit Tourette,” wherein Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome to get away with randomly swearing. To quote from the Wikipedia summary:

Kyle Broflovski quickly deduces that Cartman is faking; Cartman admits the truth to him but continues to enjoy the deception. When Kyle complains to Principal Victoria, a visiting representative from a TS foundation misinterprets his statement as an allegation that all people with TS are faking. Kyle is sent to a meeting of a local support group for children with the disorder, who explain that they truly cannot control their various tics and outbursts.

[2.] “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it are perfectly fine” versus “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it actually suffer from Condition Y”:

Here, my example is Morgellons. I remember one memorable comment online from a doctor (back when I first encountered this particular internet rabbit-hole), responding to one “Morgellons” sufferer’s claim that doctors ‘refuse to give them a diagnosis,’ that no, doctors have been giving them a diagnosis, the same diagnosis, over and over: delusional parasitosis.

[3.] “The video/book is fake, as in staged” vs. “The video/book is fake, as in nonexistent”:

Here, examples of the first are any “mockumentary” or “found footage” movie — i.e. “The Blair Witch Project” is fake. This is the sort of claim that moon-landing conspiracy theories make. The second example, in comparison, is saying that something is fake like the way “Goncharov” is a fake movie — it doesn’t actually exist, and anyone who claims to have watched it is lying (in the case of “Goncharov,” as part of the game/fun.) Generally, what I see here in terms of ambiguity/equivocation is someone making a claim of the second type which people then “debunk” as if they had made the first type of claim.

Thoughts?

[2.] “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it are perfectly fine” versus “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it actually suffer from Condition Y”:

In context, people talking about conditions being real are talking about them actually being physical conditions. Delusions aren't "real" in this sense. It's true that you can claim "it really is a delusion" or "delusions are real things, see, we can describe what a delusion is" but that's not what "real" normally means and claiming that the condition is still "real" because it's a real delusion is sophistry.

True, but there's still a difference between "this person suffers from a delusion" and "this person is deliberately lying for attention."

Another, more culture war example, is the people who identify as "plurals." They aren't claiming to have a physical condition, but one that is just as much "in their head" as any delusion — they are talking about having "headmates," after all.

True, but there's still a difference between "this person suffers from a delusion" and "this person is deliberately lying for attention."

Let's add a third category - someone that really did have transient symptoms from something that were unpleasant and difficult to explain, then that manifested as a long-run delusion that the underlying cause was still there. I find this entirely plausible based on personally having experienced a few things that were genuinely unpleasant, I received no medical treatment for, and that went away on their own. As a non-worrier, I generally do my best to just not think about it too much and figure it'll resolve, but I can easily imagine how someone that is a worrier could believe they're on their way to death and have that spiral out of control.