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'll have to take your word for it as it's all I have, but, like a certain New York City rental bike situation, I know that you and I see the world in different colors.
Anyway, if you want users to not post in a certain way then warning them privately is a pretty bad way of getting other users to know what's okay to post. I've never gotten a private warning but I've read many posts from SteveKirk in the past weeks and months and I'm sure there are some that got warnings I didn't see but this ban is the only one that points out to others that it's not an okay way to post. "Accumulating a record" that no one can see, and only the person who has the record knows that and only then they get to know only by accumulation doesn't seem transparent at all. Not for others or even the person with the record. Especially because "having a record" is the A.#1 reason why anyone gets banned on this site.
It would only be anecdotal evidence, but as someone who clicks on the volunteer button on a regular basis I think that Amadan's comments ring true, at least when it comes to reports. I see a lot of comments that I can tell got reported for reasons of "this person disagrees with me" rather than the actual quality of the post.
Yeah, I said it was like over half the reports in the janitor queue. We disagreed on how often the reports were "super downvotes" for being too left or too right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No you don't, and no we don't.
Who said anything about warning them privately? We rarely communicate with people via DMs. Warnings and bans are public. "Stop posting like this or you will be banned" is a very common thing we tell people, and even if we don't say it explicitly, if you get banned for a day, then do the same thing and get banned for week, then do it again and get banned for two weeks, you should be able to do the math.
The fact that you think the world operates on the same level with the same understanding for all people is ridiculous. I saw a clear insult receive no warning and you get to say it's not an insult and to not believe my lying eyes because the person who insulted back got some warnings earlier. I accept I don't see everything but I see what I can see, I didn't see most of the warnings that netstack brought up in the other post but I stand by what I've said. You enforce the rules haphazardly and based on divination that's impossible to understand from the outside looking in and then say everything is completely transparent expecting everyone to know everyone else's posting history by default. In most of those examples his seething is preceded by someone needling him and arguing in bad faith that does not get a warning or anything at all. The fact that you can just say "no," and then say you're the arbiter of reality is honestly breathtaking in its rudeness and smugness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link