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 -
That doesn't answer the question of whether she should have, though. It seems pretty clear to me that it was simply too good to check.
In any case, it's a little strange to say that a culture warrior with 3M followers is a "normie" or "random person".
What do you mean 'didn't check'? TW, by his own admission, claimed that he believed the 'jig was up' when LoTT kept asking for, gasp, more evidence of their claim!
Leading to them faking copies of the handouts.
Stop trying to play this off as LoTT just blindly accepting whatever was sent to her. She never did.
I don't know if it's actually better that she apparently did all this due diligence and still fell for it.
Can you explicitly make the argument for how it's anything other than obviously better? Is the idea that the hoax claim was so obviously wrong, any fabricated evidence should be automatically dismissed? Because if so, that's absurd. We have enough documented cases of insane things happening in schools, that this one would barely move the needle. The whole hoax is about on the same level as "joke's on them I was merely pretending to be retarded".
Sure. If you're just publishing everything you get, and you publish some nonsense, that's one thing - you're publishing everything, you're not trying or pretending to actually evaluate it.
If you actually do due diligence, and you end up eating the onion, that's worse. You can't even (as people in this thread claim) act like a helpless normie, because helpless normies don't give a shit about due diligence. Instead, you do due diligence if you have a sense that you have a platform and a reputation you need to guard.
So perhaps I can see the argument for "she's a savvy operator and we should blame her for fucking this up" or "she's a rube, of course she ate the bait" but going for "she's savvy and it's not her fault" is incoherent.
And where are you getting "she's savvy" from? She didn't just take a story that flatters her biases at face value, and asked for evidence, that doesn't mean she's savvy, that means she does basic due diligence. It also means people portraying her as uncritically boosting any story that fitts her bias are dishonest.
More options
Context Copy link
There are degrees of due diligence and degrees of how much effort you'd expect hoaxers to put into hoaxes, so this doesn't follow. It's not all or nothing.
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