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 -
Yeah this has the flavor of "ox goring is good, but now that my ox is gored I feel uncomfortable." That's normal. And feels shitty. But it happens, and then you get through it and keep going.
You don't flee. Fleeing makes the critics right.
Same as it ever was. I started really noticing with the discourse around doxxing/hacking. I didn't completely get into it in my recent post about Assange, but that was a very solid undercurrent. Whenever there was a new hack, a new release, a new doxx, it seemed like no one was asking, "Is this type of hacking/releasing/doxxing okay or bad in general?" Instead, it was always, "Who was hacked/doxxed/had their business released? Are they 'good' or 'bad'? Then, I can decide whether this is sunlight being a disinfectant or a grave crime against the right to privacy and security." The flip-flopping was obvious going back to the Ashley Madison hack. "Serves those cheaters right," was met with, "...but there are good reasons why a regular person would want to use Ashley Madison," which was met with, "...and there were scary government email addresses in the hack, so screw those guys." Basically no one had any sort of consistency, right on down the line. The complete polar valence switch on Wikileaks when they hit the DNC was just too insanely high-profile for anyone to not notice.
Even today, I just fired up reddit this morning to be informed that "gay furry hackers" hit the Heritage Foundation, with claims of it having something to do with Project 2025. The vast vast vast majority of people will simply dutifully line up on their side of this one, as well. I'm sure this phenomenon has been going on for centuries before I was cognizant enough to see it, but damn if it isn't sad. Especially because the most common reaction to feeling shitty about your own ox being gored seems to be, "Well, now I'm going to go off intently trying to make them feel this shitty, too." Revenge is a much more fundamental human emotion than principle.
In this case I mean more specifically the whole "everything is on the table for discussion except for the one thing that makes me sensitive" type problem which is understandable but so hard to deal with.
More options
Context Copy link
Ashley Madison's advertising was clearly aimed towards people for whom using it would be unethical, and the vast majority of users were such people. Ethical edge cases like some openly poly person who wanted to use it are a rounding error.
It's like claiming that it's okay for someone to be in the hitman business because if you're trapped in a building with a killer on the loose, you can call up a hitman and get him to kill the killer. Maybe, but that's a very noncentral hitman job.
By this reasoning, we should see everyone saying "well, this time TracingWoodgrains collected information about our enemies, so that's fine". This was not the reaction.
I've seen ample people (including mods) going "You seem to hate TracingWoodgrains more than you hate David Gerard, what is wrong with you?" which is at least adjacent to that reaction.
"What is wrong with you?" disingenuously adds a moral and emotional valence to my statement that was absolutely not there. My position is more or less what @ControlsFreak stated, and what I said very plainly: your objections to what TracingWoodgrains did to LoTT (and lack of objection to what he did to David Gerard) are 100% conflict theory and 0% principled objection.
@Jiro is, of course, wrong and misses the point. No one here has objected to Trace doing a piece on David Gerard because pretty much no one here likes David Gerard and if anyone but Trace had done the piece, they'd be blowing it up with AAQCs. But, like you, they hate Trace (for being a gay furry who started the Schism and once pranked LoTT) more than they hate David Gerard (who's a more remote figure to most people here).
I don't think this is anywhere near a fair formulation.
Well, to quote whining: luckily it's for each of us to determine fairness
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then you still don't understand my point.
I'm saying Tracing's piece on Gerard is the pot calling the kettle black. Information warfare is information warfare. It isn't truth seeking. I can only view Tracing's piece on Gerard through the lens of his past information warfare. I think other's should too. It's pertinent information about the world view of this person you need to be cognizant of as you digest their criticism of this other person.
You keep calling it "information warfare" precisely because LoTT is on your side (because she makes fun of people you hate), and therefore a prank that made her look stupid is viewed by you as enemy action for the purposes of discrediting your partisans, as opposed to making someone who plays fast and loose with accusations and whose whole game is Internet warfare look foolish. If Trace had done something similar to someone you consider an enemy, you'd have considered it a well-deserved pantsing.
I agree that Trace probably did target LoTT because she is not on his side, but I completely disagree that pranking a shitposting account like LoTT is at all equivalent to the years long activities of Gerard, or Trace's reporting on them. What exactly is your accusation here - that what he says about Gerard cannot be trusted because he's a partisan? That he's only reporting on Gerard for purposes of "information warfare" (against whom)?
All the claims of LoTT being unfairly "stung," equivalent to the police putting out a box saying "Free candy" and then arresting people for shoplifting, are transparently specious.
You know what, let me take a second stab at this.
I didn't bring up Tracings previous bad acts when he shilled his blog here talking about the FAAs diversity nonsense. Because none of Tracings previous bad acts had to do with anti-meritorious discrimination.
I didn't bring up Tracings previous bad acts when he posted about the furry nazi witch hunt, because to the best of my knowledge he never championed a witch hunt against crypto-dissidents in other communities.
Maybe my definition of information war is obscure or not obvious to you. The second paragraph of this post I made is more or less exactly what I mean. I view it as categorically immoral behavior, and it's behavior both Tracing and Gerard have engaged in to different severities and quantities. But they both have. It's inarguable.
Okay, I accept that under your definition of information war, Trace conducted "information war" against LoTT. I remain largely indifferent to this (though, once again, I did tell him at the time that I thought it was kind of a cheap stunt - but I have never been fond of this sort of internet pranking in general), because LoTT is such a crappy, bad faith source that it's very hard for me to sympathize with a nutpicking outrage farmer who got taken in by a story too juicy for her to apply some basic skepticism.
I understand that you see it as more serious - you've written a lot about how you think the sort of people LoTT regularly makes fun of are a direct threat to your family and way of life. Fair enough. But it still seems like very selective outrage to go off on him for doing a thorough, well researched article on a guy who's been a dedicated bad faith "information warrior" for years, just because he once did a hit piece on LoTT. That you see him as one of the enemy agents trying to destroy your life is frustrating to me in the same way that all pure conflict theorists are frustrating to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I call it information warfare because it was information warfare. Tracing didn't catch LoTT spreading misinformation. He targeted her with evidence he fabricated, and crowed about it like it disproved everything.
If what Tracing had done was catch LoTT spreading hoaxes he had no personally convinced her of, or did any sort of analysis of true things she shared versus fake things she shared, or approached the topic of "What are schools doing to kids?" with anywhere near the same rigor and seriousness he approached the FAA story or this Gerard story, I wouldn't have these complaints.
Instead he took a cheap, unethical, drive by potshot using lies and deception, and called it case closed.
Do you think it is deceptive to share exclusively true outrageous anecdotes that might be representative of 1%, 10% or 99% of the total source population, without specifying or even investigating how prevalent (at least to you) they are?
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