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 have no real rebuttal that this topic isn't a waste of my time. I'm aware that if someone is immune to evidence or otherwise unwilling to falsify their theory, then they're not going to change their mind, but perhaps there is some residual utility in drawing broadly applicable lessons from the scenarios (for instance, the incentives that people in the media face, why/how so many people claim to believe things that were so fanciful, etc.). I do concede that I find this topic very entertaining in addition to just interesting, but that's also true of many other topics we talk about here. The world is dreary so it's nice to laugh a little.
Regarding the Italian satellite issue, I conceded that I used the motte-and-bailey in an erroneous manner (you may not have caught the edit to my post when you linked it). I do maintain it's fair of me to bring up what a top level Trump official earnestly asked the investigative arm of the US government to investigate. I can't be accused of nutpacking when I'm highlighting the actions of someone so central to the issue. I gather that much of the negative reaction I get when I mention the Italian satellite thing is that it's acutely embarrassing and impossible to handwave away. it's relevant because it's illustrative of the credulity the Trump administration was operating on regarding the stolen election theories, it shows they were willing to entertaining virtually any theory, no matter how implausible it was on its face. I understand it's an extremely inconvenient fact for anyone who wants to argue that Trump was acting in good faith in investigating election fraud, but as Abe Lincoln said, facts don't care about your feelings.
I really appreciate your feedback.
More options
Context Copy link