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 -
Isn't one of the important parts of a conspiracy that it be secret?
If i say : There is a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Church, to push their ideas to people in other communities and nations, to seed believers among them, to found new churches and have their influence grow..then i am not describing a conspiracy, i am describing missionary work which they are quite open about.
These people you list have likewise stated their ideas and goals quite openly, so that you can access them. Doesn't that shift it from conspiracy to just a plan? If you don't like the goals or methods it can still be a plan you oppose of course but its difficult to say its an effort to:
"to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement."
because its not a secret agreement. They are saying i believe x is good, I want x to happen in places where it doesn't. Lets work together to make x happen. Isn't that just activism? As above that doesn't mean its good, there might be lots of reasons to oppose x. But it doesn't seem to be a conspiracy as such.
Otherwise Republicans working together to get Republicans elected and to advance the Republican agenda, is a conspiracy which seems a bit too broad to be useful. If a conspiracy simply means people working together to advance an agenda then almost every political and activism based organization is a conspiracy from the Tea Party to Greenpeace to the NRA, to Super Pacs, to the DSA.
I think for it to be a conspiracy there has to be something hidden. Like if the NRA was secretly working to advance gun control measures by making itself the face of 2A rights but then behaving ineptly on purpose, that could be a conspiracy.
If that's the case, people who are discussing the WEFs documented activities, and being called conspiracy theorists, are being slandered, no? I might stop yes_chadding as a tinfoil hatter, if we get that to stop.
Also that would still leave a whole bunch of other groups where the elites convene, as bona fide conspiracies. The Bilderberg Group, the Rockefeller Foundation, Club of Rome, etc. They all hold secret meetings.
A useful exercise is to mentally replace "conspiracy theory" with "beliefs the writer wishes to characterize as low status and dismiss without consideration".
More options
Context Copy link
Well if they as you did call it a conspiracy then they are correctly being critiqued no? If instead they say this is what was discussed and i think its bad and people say that it is not being discussed at all, then they are being critiqued incorrectly i would agree.
Mostly where i see conspiracy theorists going wrong is that the conclusions they draw from x evidence are generally far too strong.
As for the other meetings, then sure talk about those. But if you're only talking about the WEF then thats all we can critique.
First of all, I'm doing that, most people called conspiracy theorists don't.
Secondly, even if they did, the correct critique would be your original one "actually, that's not a conspiracy!", not " that's just a conspiracy theory ". The latter makes no sense as a critique, when someone endorses the label, which is part of the reason why I'm doing the whole Tinfoil Gigachad thing to begin with.
Would you say that answering the question from my headline in the affirmative would be far too strong? If no, do you think it wouldn't be called a conspiracy theory if I posted it at a mainstream place.
Change Are the elites to Are SOME elites and the answer is yes most likely. Keep it as THE elites (assuming they are all working in step) and I would say no. WEF doesn't include all elites everywhere and there are splits within elites even from the same nations. I've rubbed shoulders with the elite (albeit as a functionary not one of them) and they are absolutely a) not that in step and b) not that well coordinated even when they are. The WEF is a jolly for most of them, not a shadowy place to change the world.
Nuance is important and that is why I think many conspiracy theories can be easily denied as they overclaim. But nuanced theories are probably less fun/attractive I suppose.
Eg: Are some subset of the worlds western elite coordinating to try and push for gay rights in various nations around the world?
I would say the answer is pretty clearly yes. But its not particularly exciting or secret.
Are some subset of the worlds religous elites coordinating to try and push against "degenerency" in various nations around the world?
I would also say this is pretty clearly correct and also not that exciting or secret.
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