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 -
A fair criticism. What evidence would help, in your view?
I could have gone back and actually compiled some greatest hits, but I don't actually think spotlighting specific people would be particularly kind, or terribly relevant. "distributed motte and bailey" is a community problem, not an individual one. I tried to lay out a description of the subsidiary problems and offered an example of my own for what it looks like to make them.
The bold part comes from me noticing that I'm ignoring who picks the arguments. ymeskhout can't select weak arguments when he's responding unless he ignores some and focuses on others, and he's responded to enough of the claims that it doesn't look to me like he's cherry-picking weakmen.
If people are convinced in their heart of hearts that he's pulling a fast one, then it should be possible to make a coherent, supportable argument. Until such an argument is made, surly muttering and passive-aggressive sniping are poor form.
To be fair it's just not possible for me to address every argument with equal measure, even if it happens to be within my wheelhouse. That I've cherry-picked weakmen always remains possible, and people should call me out if they see it. But even if I'm guilty of that, it would only be relevant if I'm using the weakmen as a way to bury the rest of the group. It would be wrong for me to claim I destroyed a battalion by citing my victory over some toddlers in a wrestling match. So to speak.
The issue here that I found acutely frustrating is the resistance on display in letting go of specific premises, not necessarily overall conclusions. To use a deliberately outlandish example, someone arguing "J6 defendants are treated unfairly" links to video footage of Hillary Clinton using a hot iron to torture a MAGA prisoner. I swoop in with my google-fu and point out that the video is actually a scene from a porn with surprisingly high production values. A satisfying ending to this story is possible: the person who linked the video can just say "Damn I was wrong!" and we both can just move on, skipping into the horizon.
There are several things that I think definitely should NOT happen. One, I cannot cite my deboonking to claim I've conclusively proven that J6 defendants are actually treated fairly. That wouldn't follow, especially if I'm deliberately ignoring other, much stronger arguments. Two, the person who posted the hot iron porn shouldn't refuse to admit they were wrong on that premise. This evasiveness serves absolutely no purpose in this space, and it's startlingly immature. And three, now also would not really be the time for them to pivot towards dredging up ancillary reasons for why their conclusion still remains correct.
The last point especially seems like a clear "arguments as soldiers" situation. I gather that people get reflexively defensive when they believe their conclusion is under attack, and so the instinctual reflex is to retreat into another defensive line (hey-o fortification metaphor!). Either way, I try to make an effort to announce what my aims are. You'll know if I'm coming after your conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link