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 -
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