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 -
In a personal sense like keeping a gun handy?
@The_Nybbler is not being accurate; the proximate cause of Trace creating the Schism was people literally suggesting they wanted to kill him and everyone on his side. It wasn't about "advocating for lethal self-defense." Trace undoubtedly disagrees with most rightists about exactly when lethal self defense is justified (such as in the Rittenhouse case), but he didn't leave the forum because of people advocating for lethal self-defense. He initially created the Schism (while still remaining on the Motte) because of accelerationist fedposting, and he left the Motte for good because of rightists still holding a grudge against him years later and being extremely petty about it.
See my edited reply with references. The post in which he announced The Schism points to a Rittenhouse thread (NOT a boogaloo thread, though he has on other occasions referenced those) as why he feels "a large chunk of the prevailing culture here is overtly hostile towards my strongly-felt values".
Really. Let's take a look.
"This comment" being (sorry FC):
That was in response to a Rittenhouse thread, but it was the "I don't want to live in the same country as people like you" post.
TW, referring to that post immediately after linking to it, said:
I'd rather not get into another back-and-forth like I had with Steve and Arjin below, in which we're both dissecting what other people actually meant when they posted something four years ago, but it is plainly obvious to me that TW created the Schism because in his own words, he felt that too many people (including FC) were expressing a desire for violent conflict, including against his ingroup.
This is not me saying Trace was right, or that FC meant to do violence to him, or that I agree with him about Rittenhouse, or any of the other things I have already rebutted. It is me saying you are wrong that Trace's problem was "people advocating for lethal self-defense." That's an extremely disingenuous way to frame a post about a specific case, and how he responded to others' reaction to it, as Trace creating the Schism and leaving the Motte because he had an ideological opposition to any use of lethal force in self-defense.
Also: your "gay furry" crack is in fact a cheap shot. Yes, everyone knows he is a gay furry. He says he's a gay furry. He's not ashamed of it. But calling him a gay furry every time you to refer to why you don't respect him is not just a "by the way, he's a gay furry." Come on. If you want to keep highlighting how contemptible he is because you consider him a sexual deviant, do that, but don't keep calling him a gay furry and then deny why you're doing it. Why don't you ever refer to him as an "ex-Mormon" or "military veteran," which he also is? Not the same valence.
I'm hoping that I've missed something--maybe you were referring to some other comment? You can't possibly be characterizing the comment you quoted as "suggesting they wanted to kill him and everyone on his side," right?
I don't see how any reasonable person could read that meaning into the comment you quoted. If you're going to nitpick about how ACKTUALLY we were talking about Trace's stated justification and therefore he didn't ACKTUALLY leave because of people advocating for lethal self-defense, you can't also turn around and spin whoppers like this which are easily a thousand times less accurate.
For the record I am not talking about Trace's words but your own. Don't nitpick me on this. Trace may have said the reason was the violent conflict, but you baldly asserted not that that was Trace's reason but rather that it actually happened and prompted Trace's next steps. This is comparable to Nybbler ascribing a different reason to the creation of the Schism.
You say "This is not me saying Trace was right, or that FC meant to do violence to him" but here you do precisely that, directly suggesting that FC meant to do violence to him! This is a far more dishonest, biased summary of what FC said than Nybbler's summary of what Trace said!
I also find it quite dishonest to frame Nybbler's words as inaccurate because they are not Trace's words. Nybbler did not claim that that was Trace's stated reasoning, he just claimed that that was the actual reason. These are not the same thing, people are often dishonest or wrong about their own reasons for doing things, and it's fair game to ascribe different reasoning to someone than what they themselves have stated. Honestly it looks like a pretty accurate summary to me.
He said the culture was overtly hostile towards his strongly-held values. He presented, as his prime example, FCs post which was indeed overtly hostile. The strongly-held value FC was being hostile to was in fact the morality of Rittenhouse's actions that night. TW was very upset that people were killed, and thought that Rittenhouse only had a 1-2% chance of dying if he didn't defend himself using deadly force, and therefore was not morally justified in using it. Reducing this to "couldn't stand to share a forum with people who advocated for lethal self-defense" may be imprecise, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
Agreed, but even if I thought your summary was inaccurate I wouldn't call it disingenuous.
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
Please link to the post in question.
The one that comes to mind is the one we have already discussed several times (and I hate feeling like I am repeatedly calling him out), but FCfromSSC's post about not wanting to share a country with him. You may consider Trace to have been inaccurate (or even disingenuous) in claiming FC was saying he wanted to kill him (there was extensive discussion about this later, and someone even directly asked FC if he really wanted to murder people in their homes, to which FC firmly said no), but that was the discourse at the time. (FC was the most notable, but there was a regular drumbeat of other rightist posters edging up to and occasionally crossing the line into fedposting - we still see it occasionally here.) This was certainly the sort of thing Trace said was the reason he created the Schism - that he no longer wanted to share a forum with accelerationists who implied they wanted him dead.
If I have to I will find the link, but I don't bookmark things and it seems like a demand I waste my time for your entertainment, as I told @SteveAgain, when I have a hard time believing anyone who's been around for a while doesn't remember it.
EDIT: oops, went off a bit to fast, so amending:
It was not clear you were expressing Trace's opinion of what FC wrote, and in fact heavily suggested the opinion was yours.
I'll give you and @SteveAgain the benefit of the doubt and assume I communicated poorly: I do not think FC at any point said he wanted to personally kill Trace or anyone else.
Eh, I made a mess of the whole chain now. Anyway, yes I think you communicated poorly. It didn't look like you were accusing him of personnaly wanting to kill Trace / his side, the post in question contained some boogaloo rhetoric, so "calling for war", like you described it originally is reasonable. Since wars that have ended in the total annihilation of one of the belligerents aren't a central example when people usually discuss warfare, "killing Trace and everyone on his side" is an insanely uncharitable interpretation. Trace may have said that, but your original post didn't make it clear you were citing him, and instead sounded like you're expressing your own opinion.
Okay, well - at this point we're both kind of speaking after the fact about what we think other parties meant. I personally read FC's post at the time as someone about to go off the deep end and basically saying "I hate you all!" but I did not think he was literally threatening to go kill people (though I was worried he was starting to consider it). I read Trace's response as saying that he felt, not personally threatened by FC, but that FC (and other accelerationists) were no longer interested in good faith discussion or coexistence, were at least hinting at violence, and thus he no longer wanted to interact with them.
It probably would do us well to actually go reread the original posts (I'm sure my memory could stand to be refreshed as well) if we are going to keep referring to them, but unless I can plead for someone else with bookmarks to post them, you're gonna have to wait until I have the time to go looking.
So this circles back to our earlier conversation. I think this is mostly right, but it highlights the issue I was trying to raise. FC's "I hate you all!" post could understandably raise concerns about all 3, but to me Trace seemed more concerned with radical ideas gaining traction here, than either good faith discussion, or violence. Case in point, FC's much calmer demeanor that came about after that schismatic post did little alleviate Traces concerns, and if anything seems to spook him even more. Currently I don't think anyone can accuse FC of bad faith, and while he mentions civil war as a grim possibility sometimes, he's hardly advocating for it. Trace's issues all seem to boil down to "coexistence" (under the same political jurisdiction).
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
More options
Context Copy link
Link it
Link what, exactly? @FCfromSSC's now-infamous "I don't want to live with you people" post, or Trace's post announcing he was creating the Schism, or rightists being petty, or what?
If you really want me to do that, and can explain why, I will consider digging for them, but frankly I don't believe you actually doubt any of these things happened. You remember them as well as I do. Your peremptory "Link it" demand appears be an attempt at a "gotcha" because I have called you out in the past for making things up. So before you convince me to jump through your hoops and look for years-old posts, please be specific and tell me exactly what it is that you think I am being untruthful about, and what exactly you think I am misrepresenting.
The bit where FC wanted to kill TW
See my reply to @ArjinFerman. I didn't say FC literally said he wanted to kill Trace, and you know that isn't what I was saying. FC posted about not wanting to share a country with him (or me, or anyone else on the left), and Trace took that (and similar sentiments other people were posting at the time) as a message that FC and other accelerationists were advocating violence against him, or at least moving in that direction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. How much you want to bet that there is no implication there of killing either Trace specifically let alone everybody on his side? If you're going to correct Nybbler it would be nice if you didn't introduce an even greater inaccuracy,
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Someone's probably got a link. But it was about the Rittenhouse case; he also objected to other calls for violence which were not self defense.
ETA: This is the post announcing The Schism:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/j9kxab/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_october_12/g8ow12q/?context=3
This is the FCfromSSC post he objected to so much:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/ifiyso/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_august_24_2020/g35l46y/
This is TWs first post in that thread
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/ifiyso/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_august_24_2020/g34yf26/
Yes, it was about Rittenhouse.
ETA2:
Here's the reference to the spicier FCfromSSC post. It is not from TracingWoodgrains, it is from 895158:
https://old.reddit.com/r/theschism/comments/xvcesv/is_this_another_breakoff_of_themotte_itself_a/ir5n3x0/
Thanks for the links. That's an odd topic to be broken by.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link