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 -
As soon as you waggle that disapproving finger you are implicitly accepting the justice of anything done to him. Everything else is before the "but".
No, that is not how it works. I don't even believe that you don't actually believe Neil Gaiman did anything wrong. You have just identified his accusers as being your enemies, and fuck your enemies, therefore we must not admit Neil Gaiman might have done something wrong.
It is indeed.
I find old famous guys screwing starstruck pretty young things kinda gross, but then, I haven't written any best-sellers. But I find said women crying rape over it to be orders of magnitude worse, and to respond to their accusations by focusing on Gaiman's offenses is to validate the accusations.
There's a difference between focusing on his "offenses" and saying "If you weren't a skeev then you wouldn't inevitably catch accusations like this."
I'm very comfortable saying I feel little sympathy for these women's accusations, and I feel little sympathy for Gaiman being accused. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, FAFO, he fucked the leopards... Pick your meme.
These are the same thing. It's like on 9/11, saying "Well, if the Americans hadn't been messing around in the Middle East, this wouldn't have happened."
Both statements are literally true (although @ArjinFerman has convinced me that terms like "inevitably" are too prone to bad faith literal interpretations). So the question then becomes "Was Neil Gaiman's behavior inappropriate (or at least unwise)?" and "Was American intervention in the Middle East inappropriate/unwise?" If you have principles of any sort, your answer will depend on what your principles say about sexual behavior and/or foreign policy. If you don't have principles, your answer will depend on who got got.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And what can you back that statement with? As far as I can tell there's tonnes upon tonnes of sleeves that never get accused, so there's nothing inevitable about it, as well as there being people who literally haven't done anything but were accused (and I distinctly remember you joining in, in one prominent case).
Would you be saying this if he went postal and shot his accusers dead? Because the distance between a false accusation and murder doesn't seem much create than that between being a skeeev and putting in a false rape accusation.
Which prominent case are you referring to? If you're accusing me of hypocrisy or changing my position, you will have to be more specific.
I wouldn't consider Neil Gaiman going postal and shooting his accusers dead a likely or predictable consequence of being a starfucker.
My position is that he probably is guilty of, at the very least, being a skeevy old dude who's not above banging star struck young fans, but probably did nothing illegal and we should regard his accusers' claims skeptically.
Kavanaugh. It's not really about hypocrisy or changing your mind. Just a counterexample to the claim that not engaging in this behavior makes you immune to the accusations.
Please link to the post where I asserted "If you do not engage in this behavior, you are immune to accusations."
You're not being a tad pedantic here? The point of your comments isn't to say something like "this wouldn't have happened to him, if he wasn't acting like that"?
I can link the post where you say that accusations are an inevitable result of the sort of behavior he was engaging in, which is also incorrect in my opinion, but I'm not sure what's the point of autistically debating the literal meaning of an off the cuff statement.
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
And what will be done to him? I'll wager nothing unjust.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link