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 -
Let’s review the tape and see if that’s true.
That’s just one very clear example of how many claims you made about “what kind of guy Hood is.” And, as previously noted, it’s a totally bogus claim, because Hood did in fact move to a very white and very low-status state. Do you want me to pull all of the other claims and go over each of them in detail? And point out how they’re load-bearing elements of the argument you’re making? Or do you just want to take the L on this one?
Did he? I don't know, all I have is your word for it and you aren't exactly an unbiased source. The More interesting question from my perspective and more relevant to this discussion is "Has @cake? or "Have you?" and If not, why not?
Edit to add: Like I said above I'm not commenting on Hood's home life I'm commenting on his writing and the consumers thereof.
Nah, I’m not gonna do any more of your homework for you. If you actually had any interest in verifying the accuracy of any of the claims you were making, it would be very easy for you to research this yourself. You don’t, so you won’t. I’m not gonna continue to this exchange any longer. I have been very open about where I live, and about some of the terrible professional and educational decisions I made in my twenties which have made it more difficult for me to relocate to a more suburban lifestyle without simultaneously tanking my personal income in the process. I’m not rehashing any of that with you today.
And this sort of behavior is why I continue to maintain that White Nationalism as it currently exists within the continental US should not be taken seriously as an intellectual movement.
You came in spouting a bunch of bullshit clearly having only skimmed what I had wrote, and then you got angry at me for failing to immediately bend over backwards and cede the field to your superior Aryan intellect. Sorry buddy, but I am not under any obligation to make your arguments for you, or to make your life any easier. Either come correct or don't.
This is hysterical. You made a bunch of specific claims about the author, got refuted, and stuck your fingers in your ears. Just awful.
I have two things to say here:
You apparently created this account for the sole purpose of attacking @HlynkaCG because you really dislike him. Creating a throwaway account just to prosecute a grudge against one person is pretty petty. I am in no way giving @HlynkaCG favorable treatment here or trying to protect him, but when your only comments are attacking him specifically (and I have to manually approve your comments to let them out of the filter), well, probably next time I won't bother.
That said - @HlynkaCG, they're right. This is not speaking as a mod, so you are not being modded here, but speaking as a spectator who's more sympathetic to your POV on racial issues than @Hoffmeister25's, jesus, man, this is embarrassing. I award you the L and zero points. Do better.
I would like to argue that it's not my fault that these people are morons who can't read. but intellectual integrity require that I acknowledge that communication is a two way street and that the blame for a failure in communication must ultimately fall upon the communicator IE me.
You, @Hoffmeister25 @zeke5123 @somedude Et Al, are claiming that I made that I made specific factual claims but I don't see it that way, I simply extrapolated from what was presented, and I can't help but notice that no one here seems to have actually attacked my conclusion.
Listen, you criticized an author for not making a bunch of personal life choices that, oops, it turns out he did make. Then you criticized him for having a view of history that begins with WW2, when apparently he's written extensively about several different eras of history. Then you just doubled down nonsensically.
What exactly is anyone supposed to take away from this? Maybe you should just rewrite the post without all the sneering and fanfiction and try again.
I don't particularly like having all my posts be in response to you, but I also can't be motivated to post unless someone not only makes a bad argument but also rides it into the ground with their middle finger up, and that just happens to be a niche you have a monopoly on these days.
Probably has something to do with the fact that you're the only poster who can post shit talk like...
...and get away with it despite having been temp banned a billion times. If Joe Blow rolled in off the street and pulled that shit he'd be history. Even Darwin managed to be superficially polite and mostly just stopped responding when he was really being handed an L.
More options
Context Copy link
No one except @Hoffmeister25 actually disagrees with your conclusion (white nationalists bad, white nationalism is intellectually incoherent). The problem is you are making a correct argument very badly by just throwing general attacks at and about white natuonalists, even when they don't actually apply. "I'm directionally correct" just looks like doubling down on an error. Like if I attacked Republicans for being a bunch of racist old white guys in response to a quote from Nikki Haley. I could (to be clear, I am not, this is just an example) argue that in general, the GOP favors and is favored by racist old white guys, but it still looks pretty stupid to be making that argument in this case and then saying "I don't even know who this Nikki Haley person is, I'm just talking about the Republican Party."
How is this not an extremely blatant violation of the rule against consensus-building and attempting to speak for the entire forum?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s because I don’t really have a dog in the fight. Im not really interested in the goals of the white nationalists (even if I would want to reduce immigration from obviously troubled areas).
My comments were merely about the argument itself; not the conclusions drawn from the argument.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link