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 -
Of course I understand. My first objection was formulated politely, because I admitted the possibility that you are using the word carelessly, just as people are using "fascist" or "racist" - without actually caring about its true meaning, just to throw some pejorative around. Now that you admitted you use it to imply that attacking infrastructure like a bridge is somehow act of terrorism, I know that you are not careless - you are lying.
Why would I take something you parroted from Russian propaganda (the driver part) and something that is just false (the civilian infrastructure) as true? No, I do not.
No, it's about me simply not liking the lies. Especially lazy lies, parroted copypaste from basest war propaganda. It would be decent to at least show some added value.
it doesn't matter which side I'm on - there were many wars and many sides, and destruction of bridges particularly is an extremely common occurrence and it always have been considered a legitimate military target by any side. And it would be stupid to use it as an act of terror - the impact on civilians is minuscule, the worst you could get is one or two cars? If you want to terrorize - you hit a school. You hit a theater. You hit a bus station or an office building or a mall. This all has been done by Islamic terrorists, by Chechen terrorists and by the Russian government. Because real terrorists know which targets are good for terrorizing. But hitting a bridge in the middle of a war - nobody ever considered it an act of terror except in most base and naked propaganda, the one which doesn't even care if it sounds plausible because it is aimed at people that would parrot anything their side proclaims. Go ahead, find me a war where hitting a bridge wouldn't be considered hitting a war target.
I gave very detailed treatment of this claim, and specifically pointed out the reasons it is reasonable to consider he tried, and the reasons he can't do it anymore. As an answer, I got vague references to Putin killing some top Ukrainian officials, which haven't been specified - so I suspect they are non-existant - and a lot of false implications in terrorism. Which, btw, are completely unnecessary - wanting to kill an enemy commander in war does not require any terrorist intent, if FDR could kill Hitler, or Hitler could kill FDR, they would, but neither could. So your bringing terrorism into the argument just shows you felt weak without it, and justifiably - because there was nothing to contradict my description of the situation. And, of course, it reveals your biases - you want to present it not just Putin treating Zelensky as en enemy commander - but Putin being so above mere mortals as being nearly a saint, so he'd only possibly want to kill Zelensky is he's a terrorist.
no, you don't understand and your comment makes clear you don't understand the argument I'm making and instead simply escalate rhetoric while framing your initial comment as not what it was
meh, not interested
lol
I think I understand the argument you are making here, though there could be a possibility it is too complex and nuanced for my weak mental facilities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link