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 -
No.
The point is that he lies, and will make up information, and physical artefacts, to drive the story he wants to tell.
He has done this once. Has he done it again? I don't know. But I have to take everything he says through that lens, wether the story benefits 'my side' or not. There is no trust, no faith there - he can put on the Centrist or Conservative mask as much as he wants, but I know it's a mask, I know that he's lied before, and there is no way I can celebrate or advocate for the stories he writes because there is now a non-zero chance he's lying about something explicitly to look good for whatever side he's wearing as a skin suit.
Personally, I'd prefer that he'd give up the 'both sides' grift and just write whatever benefits his side and philosophy, whatever that may be.
Like I said, I'm not interested in making this a referendum on his character. You don't have to accept anything he says on any other subject. That's your own lookout. What I'm saying is that in a context where so many responses to TW's FAA reporting and advocacy are attempts to deflect, to either minimise the issue or to ad hominem the man himself, it is worth the firm reminder that what he has said about the FAA's hiring procedures is true.
More options
Context Copy link
Hoaxes are fine, in my opinion, making up evidence to set them up can also be fine. To the extent he was dishonest, it was in the presentation, not the making things depertament. He said LOTT accepted a claim without due diligence, and then proceeded to describe how much work he had to put to get past the due diligence, but since this was about a hated outgroup figure, a decent chunk of his audience bought the framing.
I'd say the lesson is you can't trust his conclusions, not that he'll hide or make up evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link