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 -
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?
I don't know.
Let me put it like this. Imagine a scale between complete information and zero information, and the morality of sharing anecdotes in either.
In the world of perfect information, where we know for a fact that say, 0.01% of teachers are pushing gender nonsense on kindergarteners, all the material your school uses to talk about sexuality in middle school and highschool are public, and you can count on the administrators and teachers to be honest with you about how your child is doing, any fears you may have over an anecdote you read about crazy shit going on in a school can be easily put to rest. A person sharing crazy anecdotes nonstop might catch a few people in their trap, but most people would probably trust their local school having seen their teaching materials and curriculum first hand. Additionally, the person sharing crazy anecdotes in a nation of 330m people, with full knowledge of the actual statistics, knows full well what they are doing.
Then you have the world of zero information. Where the schools operate in a cloud of secrecy, refuse to disclose anything, there are no statistics, and nobody will talk to you. Suddenly those anecdotes carry a lot more weight. In the absence of any other evidence, the anecdotes are all you have. Additionally, the person spreading those anecdotes has no clue whether they are ginning up fear of a minority of horrible instances that have come to light, or they are exposing the tip of the iceberg!
Right now, especially near me, we operate closer to a world of zero information than perfect information, and it's the schools own damned fault. Things have gone so damned far parents are trying FOIA request the materials schools are using to teach gender to their children, and the schools and the courts deny their request! Locally our own schools get caught lying again, and again, and again, and again. And in this light, if anecdotes are all you have, it's the schools own damned fault for their secrecy and deception.
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