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 -
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