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 -
I think it's misleading to call it "old grievances dating back a decade" when it's ongoing behavior that began a decade ago.
Just as it's misleading to dismiss criticisms Tracing's conduct during and since the LibOfTikTok affair as old grudge, given that a part of the bad behavior was the non-repentance, which is itself ongoing behavior.
This is a critique of argument structure, specifically why the defense of Tracing has to retreat from a motte-offense of categories of unacceptable behavior (the categories of bad behavior which is the subject of condemnation in the slam-pieces) to a bailey-defense of degrees and relativism (ongoing behavior is not a big deal because the other party is so much worse). The counter to a relativism-motte retreat is to reject the redefinition of standards and re-emphasize the original standards being used in the bailey-argument, which was itself categorical.
'My opponent is a [category = bad]' is not enough of an argument when one is also part of [category], and retreating later to 'My opponent is a [category=me=bad, but them > me]' after making the first argument is just a retreat to special pleading as to why the initial categorical argument isn't important after all. Similarly, defenses on a category level aren't really defenses if the category is also shared.
This is relevant to not only rhetorical arguments intended to convince people to feel something (such as that the target of a piece deserves opposition/resistance), but also to contemporary culture war politics. It's a significant factor as to why years of attempts to condemn Donald Trump on categorical accusations fall flats- Donald Trump is a serial liar/exaggerator, but so are his presidential opponents, and retreats to relativism and re-definition after the fact undercut the credibility of the opening. We've seen this in things like MeToo, when the movement was broadly signal-boosted by the Democratic Party when it was starting, but then not-so-slowly dropped when it became clear the standards were goring Democratic icons as much or more than the Republicans. And for the Republicans, this was a common failure state of those Republican politicians who would categorically condemn same-sex relationships, before they were found to be having a same-sex side-piece. It didn't matter whether they were having less gay sex than their political opponents- it mattered that, having made a categorical moral condemnation, they were doing it at all.
There are absolutely ways to condemn vices one also shares, but from a structural argument perspective, part of that requires not adopting overly-broad categorical moral condemnations (or defenses). You can do more tailored categories that build-in exonerating contexts (killing is bad, unless in self-defense), or start from a position of relativity (I'm bad, but this is worse), or even as position of human failure versus intent (I struggle and fail, but they don't even try). You can even strip the moral condemnation from the argument, so that more neutral framings let an audience come to a conclusion on their own rather than lead them to it by the nose via early and often use of pejoratives.
Okay, I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here, but none of it seems to have anything to do with what I said on the object level.
So...? That's not a counterargument. Misleading comments or misleading articles don't justify misleading responses here. An ongoing problem is not an old grievance.
And Tracingwoodgrains's continual denial that they did anything morally or ethically wrong with the LibsOnTikTok is an ongoing problem is an ongoing problem, and one they and their defenders have tried to dismiss on the accusation that the issue is nothing more than an old grievance others are raising.
The point isn't that the subject of the slam piece is not an ongoing problem- the point is that it's not the only ongoing problem. Both actions can be wrong, and both can be ongoing, and both can have dated back years, but only one side has trying to dismiss criticism on the grounds of 'old grievance.'
This is special pleading. 'Old grievance' applies to both equally whether that's equally well or equally badly, and so either an ongoing problem cannot be dismissed as merely an old-grievance (which seems to be your perspective), in which case Tracing's defense argument is undercut, or ongoing problems can be dismissed on grounds of old-grievance, in which case Tracing's post can be dismissed on the same grounds.
So you agree that your comment is misleading...? Like, I'm not talking about Tracing here. I don't know why you are.
Either it is an old grievance or it is an ongoing problem. Whatever Tracing wrote has no impact on this.
Are you unfamiliar with the rhetorical technique of demonstrating the flaws in another's argument by using it against them?
Because you are replying to a post that was about Tracing, about an argument Tracing used, which was using Tracing's argument against them to demonstrate why Tracing's argument was a flawed.
If you are not talking about Tracing here, you are not talking about the topic.
What Trace wrote has a direct impact on this, because the line was specifically pulled from Tracing's own defense.
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