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 -
Yesterday you said you weren't here to passive aggressively side talk about all these low quality populists. I didn't have time to respond and I figured the charitable thing to do would be to take you at your word, or at least not rub your errors in your face. And yet here you are not just side talking but coupling it with hilarious jokes like "The best anti-establishment takes usually come from people like Hanania" and it's complete tonal whiplash.
Jokes aside it's obvious why you like Hanania's stropfest, but you make no effort to explain why anyone else should, just another wide brush of smears against anyone who questions the neoliberal consensus. I'm not going to defend conspiracists, because that's just your nail, it covers everyone from doesn't trust polls to flat earthers and beyond.
Instead I'm going to do you a favour and explain some things populists don't like, so you can better reach those doge guys and future republican senators. Populists don't like being lumped in with the craziest people you can currently think of. They don't like people who smirk at the powerlessness of others. They don't like arguments from authority, especially when they don't respect the authority. And most importantly they don't like listening to people who are too blinded by their own petty bullshit to notice that the entire world changed in November, or who try to gaslight them into thinking Trump changes nothing even as he goes around changing everything, or whatever the fuck you were doing there.
If you think someone is "gaslighting" or otherwise stomping on the rules, report it. This sort of callout is doing no one any good.
But you are here now and the side talking and sweeping generalisations are against the rules, right?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I don’t see it.
Calling a Twitter “fake news account” conspiracy theorists is not smearing the entire category of populists. If AT is playing that game, he didn’t do it in this comment.
The issue is that if you read his posts you notice a trend, wherein anyone he doesn't like gets called a conspiracy theorist or a conspiracist or a low quality populist, but they always turn out to be working class or red tribe and there's never an angle for engagement, they are just dropped like edicts from on high. And after he drops his ridiculous wide sweeping general attack he applies to everyone he dislikes - which includes everyone from Elon Musk to Whiningcoil - and you try to engage him he never defends or elaborates his position and usually just side talks more.
This is just petulance:
And if you don't have a problem with it then there's no point in reporting it is there? But I don't think it would be tolerated if some guy constantly declared that niggers always vote for the plantation, and I won't tolerate this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn't sound like me.
This has got squat to do with "neoliberalism." Musk is basically a neoliberal. The problem is saying false things like the 4% approval rating stat and then doubling down when it's pointed out. It's not like he cited a real poll that, unbeknownst to him, had methodological flaws. The poll was completely made up.
Ok so conspiracists includes Elon Musk now and you don't like neoliberalism. You've fixated on Musk, despite not mentioning him at all in the previous post, but at least there's an argument to deal with. Next time say all that in the first place instead of whining about everyone you dislike.
Poor reading comprehension.
Whoa whoa that's interpretation pal. I'm trying to determine a coherent worldview out of a temper tantrum, it's not easy. You could always explain yourself better, but we both know why you won't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's referring to this comment, which on my reading does straightforwardly say that you're here for "work(ing) with them to explain your arguments and defeat(ing) theirs" as opposed to "sulk(ing) quietly to yourself and then passive aggressively side talk(ing) about all these low quality populists".
You're not making sense. I'm possibly the biggest Musk critic on this forum (even our resident progressives claim he's good at managing Tesla, SpaceX, etc - I don't), and you're taking swipes at people like me ("They don't come from "anti-establishment" conspiracy theorists..."), as you're trying to refocus the conversation on how wrong Musk is. Make it make sense.
I’m very confused. I feel like we’re all arguing and/or moderating past each other.
To which of the following do you object?
I don’t think Alex actually said the last one. I read his comments as a pure complaint about Elon Musk’s susceptibility to AECTs like this particular account. But you and @Fruck are taking it as a personal or at least tribal attack? What am I missing?
I didn't get the impression that he was limiting his criticism to that particular Twitter account, rather it feels like a sweeping condemnation of all AECT's.
That would be a pretty big point of disagreement as well, but it's open to civil debate.
The missing piece might be that I unironically consider myselfban AECT, so I don't know how to read that as anything other than an attack. I'm aware that there are people in my group that have a few screws loose, but a sweeping condemnation of the entire group based on that feels more extremely unfair, and I was under the impression that it's even against the rules.
How is what he doing different from condemning the entirety of, say, Critical Race Theory, based on the conduct of the students of the Evergreen State College?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Reading this conversation, I observe your comment has no single verifiable claim, it's all smears and claims what populists (underdefined) are or are not, whereas comment you replied to had a verifiable claim what polls did predict or did not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link