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 a pretty much uninvolved person (I appreciated your reporting on the FAA hiring scandal and recognize you semi-vaguely as a notable figure around here, am aware of David Gerard as a leading anti-crypto crank being a heavy Bitcoin investor myself, and check Libs of TikTok occasionally a couple of times a year when I remember it exists, think "I should check this more often because I love seeing left-wingers looking dumb.", and then forget to.):
If David Gerard has spread falsehoods, that's bad.
If Libs of TikTok has spread falsehoods, that's bad.
If you've corrected falsehoods, that's good.
...
And if you've spread falsehoods, that's also still bad.
Where in the rules of honest conduct does it say that even 10,000 truths elucidated gives you an excuse for a single lie? If you intentionally attract autists obsessed with truth-seeking to your online presence by writing thousands of words screeds about exposing the truth of various matters, of course they are naturally going to do the same to you as what you do to others like Gerard: nitpick your record of honesty.
Losing your shit like this doesn't make you seem righteous; it just makes you seem mad that the same eye of scrutiny you cast upon others applies to you too. (Incidentally this is the same thing that happened to Scott vis-a-vis Alexandros Marinos. If even he can get got, so can you. You've got to learn to handle it better than by just trying to play the victim.)
Some of the most obnoxious moments here are when someone dredges up a historical feud and the peanut gallery thinks it’s productive to opine at length on the object level of that feud.
The people still beating this drum hated me before that moment and see it as simply the most convenient attack vector. You’re welcome to play along, but I’m not going to validate it. Enjoy your site.
Okay, conceive of everyone as part of the "conspiracy" (as useful idiots or not) and run away to carve out your own little slice of besieged territory online where presumably it's only a matter of time before any dissent is ruthlessly purged. You think that's intellectually productive?
Do tell, does this prohibition on not litigating the object level ("at length" apparently in four sentences) of various potential offenses because of alleged persecution against the offender only apply to you, or do you extend it to others too? Do you avoid opining on what, say, for example Donald Trump may or may not have done lately because there are obviously so many people who are just out to get him anyway, who have always already hated him before whatever his most recent offense was, and who obviously only care about "the most convenient attack vector" to take him down? Do you chastise your left-wing fellows for "play[ing] along" with this?
Honestly, you're just coming off here like a pussy who isn't fit for public discourse despite clearly wanting to be involved with it. And the Internet smells pussy like sharks smell blood, which means that if you don't toughen up, soon whatever good you could do will just end up being buried by your own paranoia and insistence on taking a Chris-chan "fighting da dang dirty trolls" attitude towards things. That's the posture you're clearly careening towards. (Keep coming off this weak and you will eventually attract people who want to troll you not even because of any actual grudge but rather out of a sense of pure entertainment and seeing if they can elicit the next meltdown.)
You used a tactical nuke against Gerard (and it really is a good article) but then you're also still complaining about getting the occasional pistol pulled on you. Man up and get over it. You think you have it bad? Imagine being Kyle Rittenhouse who legitimately did nothing wrong (at least initially) and was only trying to help his community as a 17 year old but now has probably at least 10% of "low-information voters" thinking he is a confirmed Nazi mass shooter who killed at least 20 black people but was just let go by the fascist police with free Burger King for life after because racism. That's actual persecution, grudge-holding, being the victim of a campaign of propaganda, etc.
A few people thinking a prank you did was dishonest by comparison is small peanuts. Without a thicker skin than this, you've reached your ceiling other than in a carefully-cultivated hugbox.
Okay, I know you really want to call him a pussy, and you did your best to do that without saying "You're a pussy," but you didn't do a good enough job. This is too antagonistic and you know it.
More options
Context Copy link
People are welcome to pull pistols on me. If someone wants to write an in-depth expose on all of my online activity, be my guest. I leave it open for the world to see. I encourage it, in fact: write your hit piece on me. Write a magnum opus detailing my crimes to the world. I throw plenty of punches and am prepared to receive them in return. But dragging it into unrelated conversations, such that every conversation becomes a referendum on those topics, deserves no respect and serves to do nothing but degrade this forum as a place for conversation.
As for carving out my own little space online where dissent is purged, everyone from Steve Sailer to Zero HP Lovecraft to BAP follows me on Twitter, where I openly and emphatically argue against them. If I'm trying to dodge the online right, I'm doing a terrible job of it.
Anyway, you seem charming. I'll leave you to it.
Does Kulak? Did the two of you talk about never mentioning this place, or did you both come to the same conclusion separately?
Not everyone is trying to have an online career, like you are, and Kulak is. I suppose it's natural that the people making the best content are going to don't ways to benefit from it. Whatever this place is, it isn't a place to have a career.
I wish you success, but I'm still one of the grudge holders, and for me it was theschism that I'm holding a grudge about. I don't want to being it up every time, but that was offensive to me, and it is offensive to me to hear your complain about people killing themotte when you tried to schism it a few years ago. Leaving for Twitter is a better way, and if that scratches the itch that made you make theschism, then I only wish Elon had bought Twitter sooner.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, if you think your record of honesty (even if people may be exaggerating it in the dishonest direction) isn't relevant to your own takedown of somebody else for dishonesty, then you're just wanting a special exception from the rules you seek to enforce on others. That is what "deserves no respect and serves to do nothing but degrade this forum as a place for conversation". Sorry, but if you've really been around on the Internet this long, you should know that nobody gets a special pass. Good luck seeking otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole David Gerard post was about a historical feud. You did it first.
Enjoy your feud, Jiro. You, like Nybbler, have mostly damaged this website, and you remain the same as ever. Take care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link