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 -
Considering that interviewing a Nazi and promoting the interview aren't indicative of any sort of positive opinion on Nazism - in fact, both behaviors are pretty much orthogonal to one's support of or opposition to the ideology, or any ideology - I'm not sure how this could be claimed to be evidence of such a thing.
This idea only works if a person is seriously committed to exploring viewpoints on their own merits rather than using that as a shield to broadcast highly controversial views. Tucker and the people who watch him might not fully agree with Nazi viewpoints as they're espoused, but they probably agree with at least some of them, and more importantly wish they were in the Overton Window in order to make their own views more palatable.
Sure, but you have no credibility with which to make the judgment whether they're seriously committed to exploring viewpoints on their own merits or using it as a shield to broadcast highly controversial views that they want to pull into the Overton window. In general, very few people have that level of credibility when talking about other people's behaviors, and specifically, if those other people are people one disagrees with or dislikes, then they definitely have no credibility in determining such things. If I disagree with them, then regardless of the underlying reality, of course I'll convince myself that these bad people with bad ideas are dishonest cynics who are cynically being dishonest in order to sneak in their bad ideas to the mainstream, and as such, my conclusion that that's what they're doing carries no weight.
This is why, again, interviewing a Nazi or promoting such an interview tells us nothing about how anti- or pro-Nazi they are; it's some dimension other than the actual ground-level ideological/political beliefs that determines if someone believes that publicizing an interview with [ideological/political beliefs they disagree with] is bad. It's either ideological hubris or ideological authoritarianism or some combination of both that are the determinants.
We don't have to use mind-reading here to determine motives. Rather, we can see if he's done similar things to the other side to determine if he has a genuine interest in all sides of the discussion. Has Tucker had a good faith interview with a far left woke person before? As in, one where the goal wasn't to laugh at them or use them as a foil, but to explore their views as he's comfortable doing with Nazis? I highly doubt it, but feel free to prove me wrong.
If we refuse to do this, then we capitulate to grifters who eternally claim they're "just asking questions". It's bad to give JAQing off a pass.
I don't watch Tucker - even clips of his other than, say, as part of a montage of right wingers saying ridiculous things, very rarely shows up in the media I consume - so I don't know if he's ever had a good faith interview with a far left "woke" person before. As best as I can tell, he hasn't, and I'd be happy to presume that he hasn't. Given what far left "woke" people have said about their ideology, this seems to be primarily a consequence of there being a dearth of far left "woke" people who are also willing to even consider being in the same room as Tucker, much less being seen having a conversation with him in public. It's the same phenomenon I've seen with interviewers that I have paid attention to, such as Sam Harris, who was practically begging far left "woke" people to converse with him on his platform as of around 5 years ago, with someone like Ezra Klein being the farthest left/farthest "woke" person he managed to land, IIRC. And Harris, even today, isn't considered nearly as much a right-winger as Tucker is.
But, more to the point, singular examples involving a pundit who likely interviews dozens of people a year, hundreds of people in just a few, isn't meaningful, and even more to the point, when the person never claims to be trying to put together an in-aggregate fairly balanced lineup of interviewees in his show (as best as I can tell, Tucker hasn't claimed this). Maybe he has a heavily right-wing bend in his interviewees, and it's done out of intentional bias rather than out of limited options or even unintentional bias. So? Perhaps Tucker wants to provide a platform on which to have good faith discussions about right-wing ideas, especially those that don't tend to get platforms? After all, if Tucker had a good faith conversation with a far left "woke" person, well, an argument between a far left "woke" person and a rightist like Tucker is about a dime a dozen; the views of someone who's far left "woke" are essentially hegemonic in modern media, and there's precious little to be gained from listening to yet another conversation analyzing and critiquing it. There's some gain, potentially, but, I'll just say that I doubt that Tucker is the kind of brilliant mind who'd be able to extract some extra insight that others had missed when discussing the ideas of this far left "woke" person for the umpteenth time. On the other hand, good faith conversations about far right ideas - certainly of the sort that would be espoused by a Nazi - are difficult to come by outside of niche subcultures like this one. Even someone of Tucker's wit and intelligence would be able to offer a lot of valuable new insights into the world merely by asking basic questions, because almost no one is asking or answering those basic questions in good faith.
So don't give them a pass. Who the heck cares if you do or don't give them a pass? What does not giving them a pass even mean in this context? JAQing off is bad only inasmuch as it overwhelms a limited bandwidth, such as taking up the time of a researcher or expert with questions that offer no insight, which prevents the person from spending that time answering actually meaningful questions. There is no limited bandwidth here; Tucker's interviews aren't being forced to be beamed onto everyone's phones at the cost of people being able to download an interview with a far left "woke" person or whatever. People who don't like the questions that are being asked by Tucker and his ilk can just... not download his interviews and leave their bandwidth open for the types of content they do like. Just because they're asking questions doesn't obligate anyone to answer them or to listen to someone answering them. So don't answer them, and don't listen to them. Go ahead and don't give them a pass; just don't go around claiming that someone else answering them or listening to the answers is somehow indicative of their friendliness to whatever questions and answers are the topic here.
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