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 don't know how many different ways to say what I'm saying but you don't seem to have understood at all.
Your original post was terrible. The most innocent way of reading it, is that you were not personally sneering at Byrne (or me), but you thought it would be appropriate to rhetorically speak from the perspective of others who are sneering at Byrne (or me) instead of engaging with him (or me)--implying that the sneering perspective is totally cool and fine.
My point was that the most innocent reading of your comment is bad, because that perspective is neither cool and fine, nor the kind of perspective we indulge here--so even prosopopoeia makes a thin excuse. Your prosopopoeia was neither innocent nor cogent, it was just voicing a sneer.
You can make the argument that their perspective is totally cool and fine, which task you partially took up in your later comments. That's fine! It's fine to argue that sneering instead of engaging is cool and fine (you'd be wrong, on my view, but you are free to be wrong!). Delving into the substance beyond that was in pursuit of illustrations only, which I regret because it seems to have only further confused you about the nature of my objection to your original comment.
Ok, lets circle back to our original comments then.
You talk about my failure to 'engage with' Byrne, but I think we need to specify between two different types of engagement here.
There's 1. Engaging with Byrne's arguments about trans people and gender ideology, and 2. Engaging with Byrne's assertions about how academics are cowardly and won't engage with anything that could get them in trouble.
Your original post was entirely about 2, and never delved into 1.
My response was also entirely about 2, and not meant to say anything about 1.
You're correct that, if I had been trying to disprove Byrne's claims about trans issues by saying that people consider him to be a laughably wrong asshole, then this would just be sneering at the opposition to dismiss them without engaging their ideas. I agree that would be bad, and also stupid.
But my post was providing an alternate explanation for Byrne's observations about academics not engaging with him. It was solely about 2, and I believe I engaged with 2 directly and reasonably. The theory I propose is actually sufficient to explain his empirical observations, it's a viable alternative hypothesis that deserves to be a part of this conversation, and it's what I actually believe to be the most likely cause.
So, again: it was not sneering at Byrne to dismiss 1, it was engaging with 2 by suggesting that it is explained by people sneering at 1.
Now, aside from the content, there's the question of tone. Certainly I used strong language, and I could have written something more oblique and indirect, like:
"Although I can appreciate why it would feel to someone in Byrne's position that the lack of public engagement to his ideas must be some sort of conspiracy or enemy action, I don't think this is actually the only or most parsimonious explanation. Consider the fact that many of the ideas he advances in the article you linked have been around in the popular media discussion of this topic for years now, and in academic discussion of these topics for much longer. Consider also that, as you yourself say, Byrne is only a recent entrant to this topic of study, and seems to be entering it with teh intent to reach a mass popular audience quickly, rather than slowly building his credentials through academic publishing and conferences. It seems quite plausible to me that academics who are more versed in this subject matter simply don't find his ideas novel enough or persuasive enough to merit that type of public engagement, and that they are weary of engaging someone who may pattern-match (perhaps through coincidence and no fault of his own!) to the type of person who is jumping on a popular trend in hopes of garnishing fame and fortune. I also note that this pattern by which someone notices that their ideas are not being engaged with, and suggests as a natural explanation that people must despise or fear their ideas or be motivated by some political commitments, is to my mind a common and potentially dangerous form of bias. While such events certainly do occur, I think they are rarer than people imagine, and less likely than they feel to the person living inside such a situation; a more common explanation is simply that most people never merit that type of attention and engagement for their ideas in the first place, and most ideas are not persuasive or interesting enough to inspire such a response regardless of their social context.'
Would that have been a better comment?
My feeling is that, while it's certainly more politely-phrased, it would be a significantly worse comment.
It lacks the visceral emotional impact that captures attention. More importantly, it lacks the visceral emotional narrative which I think accurately captures the real psychological and social dynamics at play here. In the name of tone and politeness, it obfuscates to the point of misleading; the laughing in derision at something you've seen pop up and be (to your mind) debunked a hundred times is a very real thing, the avoiding and hedging out of people you think are opportunistic assholes is a very real thing, and I think the understanding of those emotions are important to the argument.
I think it's good to use blunt language, when that most accurately conveys the point being made. I think it's good that you called the people who disagree with you on gender issues 'a cult', and say that they seem to only believe what CNN tells them to believe. I think it's good that LS says his political opposition 'like getting politically pegged'. I think it's good that Armin says the Left is full of apologists for jew-slaughter and WC responds by talking about their naked insanity.
These comments do not use maximally polite language, but they do clearly express a position in a way that is succinct, intuitive, easy to understand, and easy to engage with. I think they often do a lot more to advance the discussion and communicate ideas effectively than a wall of oblique caveated mush ever could. I think the push away from that type of blunt language often ends up with misunderstandings and lack of communication, because people have trouble maintaining focus over and fully responding to large walls of oblique text, when they even bother to read them thoroughly in the first place. And because they lead to responses fracturing into sub-responses to sub-sections or only responding to one paragraph out of eight or etc.
All of which boils down to a stylistic preference which, again, I'm happy to discuss. Or, if you want to edge more into your moderator hat and just declare that it's not acceptable, I'll just have to accept that and try to remember.
Yes!
I've been trying to not lean in to the mod hat here, but as that is where I have the most direct experience with this problem... let me put it this way. From a tone-and-phrasing perspective, your original comment is indistinguishable with the black-pilled "rationally the only choice left to us is violence against the outgroup" stuff that we are periodically called upon to moderate. Sure, it might be more rhetorically effective to sneer or saber-rattle in these ways. But thought-terminating cliches are the end of discourse, and discourse is the foundation, the whole reason this site exists. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; rhetoric is the enemy of light, perhaps most especially when it is highly effective. This is more than mere stylistic disagreement, this is a question of whether you are here for discussion with people who disagree with you, or here to wage culture war.
And the thing is--you really have, now, engaged in a lot of discussion with me, here! You seem to be totally capable of it, and if you really hated doing so I can't imagine you would have continued coming back to respond to me for as long as you have. So just, like... lead with that! It doesn't mean you can't express pointed evaluations--the rule is not "no antagonism" it is "be no more antagonistic than necessary for your argument." The rule is not "don't criticize your outgroup," it is "provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be." Blunt language is fine, but there is a meaningful difference between speaking plainly and unapologetically, and simply airing disdain (whether your own, or someone else's). If your post amounts to little more than a "boo" light, then it doesn't meet the standard of discourse here.
Ok, I do still think there is value in that type of pointed comment, but I am getting the message about how it will be interpreted when it is too much of an inferential gap away from a reader's expectations. Which makes sense.
I'll try to remember that and use the other style.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link