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 -
If only someone could provide compelling evidence so that this lawyer guy would stop trying to beat this dead horse.
Too bad it won’t be TTP, apparently.
Actually though, with complex and nebulous issues it’s often the case that rigorously examining a particular issue/example where some evidence is available is the only way to make any progress and not have the discussion spiral out of control.
There’s an asymmetry here where all we skeptics of election fraud theories can do is address claims that are made and evaluate evidence that is provided. We can’t prove the negative, so identifying say dishonesty from a prominent promoter of election fraud theories is about the best approach possible.
Lawyerly systematic approaches can get in the way of having fun though.
The desire to remain control of the conversation is a substantial part of why the lawyer guy's broader position continues to lack the consensus he regularly tries to build. By denying previously provided compelling evidence of misconduct warrinting doubt as compelling, and then insisting later that only uncompelling arguments were ever offered, not only does the presenter lose credibility regarding the root argument, but lose credibility as an interlocuter in subsequent repetititions. It's not that a negative needs to be proved, it's that repeat iterations have demonstrated that there's no point in further engaging with positives that will be inevitably denied/diminished/claimed in the future were never provided.
This is without the acknowledgement that the lawlerly systemic approach isn't an approached to uncover truth, but to win a legal argument in a court of law- but coming in the context where only around 1-in-5 people trust lawyers. Unlike more respectable professions, which rely on public trust for deference, lawyers are owed no such deference due to the lack of trust.
It is his form of fun, however, so he'll enjoy his otherwise quiet night none the less.
Can you cite a specific example of compelling evidence that I have denied? Once again to assist you, here are every single one of my reddit motte posts archived in this google spreadsheet.
More options
Context Copy link
I guess I missed the weeks when the compelling evidence was provided, and so did TTP. But see broadening the discussion to any old theory put forth gets very messy very fast and makes it easier for shoddy claims and poor evidence to survive scrutiny.
Broadening the discussion to avoid being pinned down is a classic approach, and so being unable to wriggle due to preestablishef constraints is unpleasant.
The lawyerly approach is about the best one possible in an area of competing sides and contested evidence, and our local lawyer’s approach is even better in that he’s not going to win here on some technicality or strange legal theory.
“Who cares about these guys they’re not the real case” seems a bit convenient when they’ve been so prominent in their field.
There were literally years ago, so it's easily forgiven (and forgotten). They're not of much interest to anyone anymore.
Time and censoring effects also make it harder for true claims and relevant evidence to be re-resurrected well after the fact, especially when contrary to significant media interests and the effects of the already-difficult nature of web indexing. Multiple deliberate efforts have taken course over the last several years to suppress information declared as disinformation by authorities who regularly had incentives, and occasionally were even caught, pursuing said incentives for information shaping.
Frank disagreement. The lawyerly approach is not the best possible approach to revealing truth in an area of competing sides and contesting evidence, as the lawyerly approach is to declare certain forms and sources of evidence as off-limits for consideration regardless of veracity, and then to declare the absence of evidence a victory for lack of contestation rather than address reasons why evidence might not have been presented (or accepted). The lawyerly approach also often favors demands for selectively applied processes, violations of which are invitation for censure, to the degree that even the defense against which can widely be recognized as arbitrary harassment, i.e. the process is the punishment.
The lawyerly approach is generally a preferable approach to settling disputes, but settling disputes is tangential to addressing the truth of a matter, and the truth may or may not be of active hinderence to the lawyerly process.
Truths are often convenient. Such as the truth that the TTT is not particularly prominent, because the constellation of reasons for skeptics has been far too diverse for any singular party, but specific parties have been signal boosted by those who like to utilize them.
You’re conflating an informal “lawyerly approach” with the formal court system and assigning the known epistemic and other shortfalls of the latter to the former. Here, we can choose the advantages and avoid at least most of the disadvantages.
We obviously have a dispute here, and trying the case of a specific part of it is potentially useful in getting closer to the truth.
I cannot fully express how funny it is to imagine that there was compelling evidence for significant fraud, that was available then and not now, and that this is not of interest to anyone.
There was extreme scrutiny of the 2020 election, many claims of fraud, and some evidence provided.
The evidence fell short of the claims then and continues to.
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