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 -
Fair and people are divided on mcgregor since most of the behind the scenes evidence of the case is not as public, once that is the case and it is fairly clear that he voilated her consent, I will wish for him to be seen as an offender.
If people will go out and doxx Scott Alexander, a good-hearted lib who did no one wrong, get Charles Muray cancelled for Milque Toast hbd and have laws that punish any reactionary statements at all, then I have no issues with others using whatever means they have at hand. You cannot expect to win against people who want your life destroyed, scott was hounded by the NYT, that reporter is still doing whatever he did and a bulk of the people who cancelled NYT subs happily agree to go on their podcasts and talk to their journalists. Boo outgroup is the only solution in many cases, not a defence of conor though since if he is indeed a rapist then you dont want such people around but boo outgroup is a completely fine thing imo.
This is the problem with stipulative framings and sorting people into arbitrary buckets to suit the rhetorical needs of the moment. No one here disputes that the Grey Lady was wrong to attempt to dox Scott. What on earth does that have to do with how Irish journalists who've lived in Ireland their entire lives cover migrant crime? What does that have to do with how an Irish satire website cracks jokes about Conor McGregor? "Because an American newspaper tried to destroy a blogger I greatly admire, I must show no mercy and give no quarter to Irish journalists who've never worked at said newspaper and have never heard of said blogger" sounds functionally indistinguishable from "I must murder prostitutes because my dog told me to".
You have no evidence that the Irish journalists under discussion are utterly lacking in moral principles, or that they couldn't be shown the error of their ways and gently be persuaded to properly live up to the moral principles they do in fact possess. Not a single one of the examples you cited were from Ireland; two of them weren't even from Europe. Your entire argument rests on the transitive property of "these journalists have demonstrated that they are part of my enemy's team; members of my enemy's team have been known to do bad things and disregard their stated principles; ergo, these specific journalists have no principles and want to destroy me, so I must destroy them preemptively". Compare "@mrvanillasky is Indian; India has a higher rate of sexual assault than many other nations; ergo @mrvanillasky is a rapist, no further evidence required". Obviously you wouldn't like someone drawing that inference about you, so try to extend the same courtesy to members of your out-group.
Fair enough, I was a little too uncharitable there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link