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 -
I would love for you to try to find the "evidence" of whatever claims you are supposed to be making about Nord Stream 2.
Journalists don't make claims, they simply report the evidence they managed to find.
That's a hallucination. Hersh has never engaged in conspiracy theories, the Osama bin Laden information was confirmed by Obama. Hersh was vindicated, as he usually is.
It is you the one that has a motivated reasoning to distrust Hersh's reporting.
Neither of which can be falsifiable. Right?
Converse error fallacy.
And you are wrong. You are mind-reading based on a converse error fallacy.
You are wrong again. I said I was done with that particular subthread, I didn't say I was done with all subthreads.
You may notice I didn't address every single weak argument you've put forward in this subthread either.
False. You have never established that. All your arguments point towards someone who doesn't know how the military works, which I already addressed.
The article never mentioned anything remotely close to that. How many people do you think hold a top-secret clearance in USA?
Once again I don't think you know what you are talking about. The premise of the Streisand effect is someone trying to hide information. What information do you think I'm trying to "hide"?
The 'evidence' in this report is a series of claim made by an alleged anonymous source with access. Moreover, the claims of the anonymous source are unsupported by corroborating evidence (hence the reliance on argument by narrative), and contradicted by available evidence (flight data that doesn't match the claimed trigger mechanism).
This now begs what you think is a hallucation, as well as what specific information you think was verified versus what wasn't.
Repeating the claim from a position of motivated reasoning neither makes it motivated reasoning or disarms the stated basis of skepticism.
No, you could certainly identify your age and the depth of your checking to Chomsky's more contentious claims which have been critiqued over time.
Misuse of converse fallacy.
Still misuse. The criticism was a characterization. Your rebuttal was that it was false as you never claimed the characterization. The rebuttal to your rebuttal is that it was never claimed you claimed the characterization. This is not a converse error fallacy, this is basic strawman fallacy being rejected.
I am quite correct that you lack hundreds, and remain vindicated in my expectation that you will continue to strive for the last word despite multiple claims you are done.
I note you are also still on the same subthread, and expect you to continue to do so for reasons of predictability and ego.
No, I'm well aware you're not addressing them, but my viewpoint is that you're abandoning weak positions that your deflections could not resolve.
True. This is and remains my argument.
I have made my argument on multiple points. Whether you accept it as established is irrelevant.
All of my arguments were not restricted to the military, nor did your addressing actually resolve or mitigate the criticism. 'Address' does not mean 'defeated,' and you have consistently dropped threads that remained contested, even if you claim to do so because they are weak.
With access to covert operations planning at the White House level for black operations specifically designed to avoid oversight? Very, very, very, very few, and only at high levels of the US government where alleged meetings were taking place with people who constitute highly placed members of the current administration.
This, again, is indicative of someone who doesn't understand the workings of the US government.
Hiding is only one of the causes of the streisand effect. Trying to otherwise draw attention away from information is another form. By placing your particular rebuttal well below the current topic of the day- below the fold in American media parlance- even as you created a new subthread, you engaged in a way to minimize attention to standing counter-arguments.
However, your attempt to re-raise the topic in a different space, and let the previous thread die in obscurity with your rebuttal as the last word in any future review, only drew more attention to the counter-argument... even though you attempted to use a lack of attention as a basis of criticism in the lower thread.
That argument seems to be a little humorous in retrospect, given the unmasked voting ratios in periods where anyone likely read it, but the obvious argument on appeal to the majority is obvious, even as it would be wrong here.
However, as we're sufficiently meta here to note that the scope of discussion is narrowing, and I've made clear my perception of why, I'll let any future reviewers make their judgement as to who is correct. You can have the last word if it will help you feel better, but this exchange has drawn it's expected pattern, and I doubt you'll find any vindication in being predicted.
That is evidence.
Prove it.
I am 40. And you pick a controversial Chomsky "claim".
No, it's not a misuse. You are literally saying because I appear to have done something, therefore I did it. If it glitters, then it's gold. That's a fallacy.
Your viewpoint is wrong. If you want me to address your "strongest" positions, then only mention those.
Simply saying "true" does nothing, you have to substantiate your claim, which you haven't done so far. Therefore your claim is dismissed.
This is a probabilistic fallacy. You are talking about
P(X), we are talking aboutP(X|O). Yet another example of motivated reasoning.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link