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'm sorry you had to deal with this, and you are of course permitted to share your experiences and your frustration. But referring to people as "biowaste" is over the line. Even "smug pricks" is sufficiently inflammatory that you should bring some evidence of smugness and maybe drop the "pricks" altogether.
Maybe I should I call them "witches" instead, which certain mods show us is an acceptable insult? With a bonus insinuation of "and we all know what needs to be done to witches"?
Why post on this forum if you don't want to abide by the rules around inflammatory language and speaking clearly? There are many other fora where you can describe in great detail what needs to be done to the homeless (in Minecraft).
I'll be happy to if they promise to follow the same rules. No more crap like "time to burn some witches before they run this town," and I'm all good.
And people seem to appreciate the info I bring to discussions, which is always encouraging.
Why would I not post when there are people who want to talk about gardening or medieval economic history or fringe political things I can dump evidence for that nobody else knows about? There's almost nowhere on the internet like that any more.
There only seem to be roughly 4-5 haters who dislike my posts, and I'd be happy to engage with them too if they'd speak up instead of downvoting and reporting everything.
And you? You post an awful lot of one line angry complaints about people, and don't seem to like being downvoted for them. What keeps you coming back?
I would not have banned you(and it looks like you didn't get banned), but having rules against referring to real people as biowaste while allowing another poster to refer to posters like me as witches who ought to be viciously mocked for our backwards beliefs isn't hypocritical, nor is that poster strictly speaking allowed to do so; he gets in trouble for it all the time.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if your position was entirely true, aren't you now taking the same actions as the addicts you dislike? You are deliberately shitting up the metaphorical sidewalks here, because you feel some other people get away with it?
Even if true that isn't going to get you a less shitty sidewalk. Just means more shit to be shoveled.
You're not just defecting against other defectors, you're defecting against everyone else. If you see two people shitting on the sidewalk or breaking into your car, does it matter one is only doing it because the other gets away with it? I would suggest you are likely to be pissed off at both and both are making the place worse.
The votes suggest people do not think I am "shitting up the place," I think you're just using that as a gaslighting tactic because you enjoy being manipulative.
Do you understand how this kind of direct personal attack fails to advance the foundation? This is unkind, uncharitable, needlessly antagonistic, contributes nothing of substance to the conversation, and just in general does not contribute to an atmosphere of open discussion.
You are not required to agree with others. To the contrary! Disagreement is an important part of what we do here. You are not even required to be pleasant or agreeable. If you demolish someone's argument, they might very naturally be upset by that, and sometimes they will even complain about it to us. But that sort of thing is not only permitted, it is probably essential to the advancement of the foundation.
By contrast, your disdain is unwelcome, unwarranted, and frankly unwise. Sneering and name-calling and making personal attacks simply antagonizes others. It's all heat and no light.
This particular comment is not the most antagonistic comment I've ever seen, but it is antagonistic enough--and engaging in this sort of behavior immediately after I've warned you against it is straightforwardly unrepentant. You didn't just lose your temper and have a bad day; you plainly decided to disregard my warning and double down on your rule breaking.
Your last ban was for a week. This one is for two. I don't know how to make this any clearer: moderate your tone or your bans will quickly escalate toward infinity.
More options
Context Copy link
You may of course believe what you please. But upvotes are not the measure of that. Otherwise all the people who vote for thepoliticians who enact the policies about homeless people you dislike, would be proving those positions correct no? If popular voting is the arbiter.
But you yourself admitted to breaking the rules on prpose here because other people get away with it, so you do not have a leg to stand on here I am afraid.
Do better or don't, but if you post it is fair game for people to argue against you.
Not to "well-ackchewally" up the place, but voting for a politician who is an amalgam of dozens of policy positions, and who may or may not ever actually carry through on those positions doesn't actually mean that the voter endorses everything the politician ultimately does (e.g. tory voters who wanted less immigration to the UK and voted for politicians who repeatedly promised less immigration but still got mass immigration anyway). Up-voting a particular comment in a debate is a much clearer signal of what exact position is being supported.
Well sure, but to uno reverse it, upvoting a post likewise doesn't mean you agree with all of it. Especially if it is long and includes good bits and bad bits. Maybe you like one part bit would prefer it without references to biowaste.
But anyway the main point is that popular things can still be bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bud, anyone who writes a hate-filled screed about how much they hate leftists/Jews/trannies/take your pick will get a ton of upvotes, especially if it's long and detailed and filled with personal or historical anecdotes and not just "Fuck Those People."
You seem really fixed on the idea that "When I go off, lots of people upvote me, therefore my posts are good."
The ability to garner upvotes is often, but not always, associated with post quality, but we mod highly-upvoted posts very often. Sometimes even good posts that unfortunately have a bit of shit in them.
If you think it shouldn't be that way, find a forum, as others have said, where you can get seal claps for shitting on Those People. This isn't that place. Most people, even if they do sometimes applaud you for dropping a steaming turd on the "right" target, do not actually want steaming turds all over the place.
Yeah, no, I'm not buying it. I've seen you use this line on far too many good people.
I think all you're optimizing for is getting rid of "witchiness" as sneakily as you can without making people too upset about it.
Sorry to say this publicly, but you and sscreader are two of four regular posters who I completely discount, and would rather not see at all if blocking didn't disrupt the site experience so much.
If you want to call mentioning being the victim of a crime "dropping a steaming turd", go ahead. But I think people are sick enough of that reddit-mod manipulation tactic that it won't work.
You may (given your pm to me) not believe this, but I do find many of your posts useful and interesting, I just think you let your emotions get the better of you a bit and have a little too much open boo outgroup in some of them and I think they would, and this space would, be better without those elements.
Having said that given you just said you don't like blocking people because it degrades the user experience, asking me in pm to block you is a little bit of a dick move. So its ok for my user experience to be degraded because you don't want to see my posts, but you're not willing to take one for the team, when you are the one with the problem? Not cool, man.
Suffice it say, if you don't want to see my posts, either bite the bullet and block me, or just ignore me. I won't take offense, I promise.
More options
Context Copy link
No you haven't. You've seen me use this line on lots of people just like you who think the rules shouldn't be applied to you when you want to shit on people you think deserve it, and who think we should let unfiltered venom be normal discourse.
There are "witches" who've been posting here for years. There are "witches" who have rarely or never been modded, because they are actually capable of presenting their most extreme arguments in a civil fashion.
If we wanted to get rid of witches, we could have done that.
Are my feelings supposed to be hurt? Most of our worst actors, unsurprisingly, nurture a deep resentment towards the mods who mod them most frequently.
You know perfectly well that it was not "mentioning being a victim of a crime" that I was referring to as "dropping a steaming turd." (Truth be told, I probably wouldn't even modded your OP. I thought the venting was borderline, but mostly generalized. @naraburns thought otherwise.)
This is the sort of disingenuous argumentation that causes me to discount what certain people say. Since we're being "sorry to say this publicly" and all - there are people who complain about our moderation who make well-reasoned points about how they think moderation should work and what would be best for the site, and they simply differ with us on the best policies, and have a different vision than Zorba does or a different interpretation of the rules than naraburns or netstack or I do. And that's fine, if unfortunate that sometimes it causes resentment.
Then there are people like you, who want to drop steaming turds and are constantly infuriated that you're not allowed to.
Remember, we also see the reports you write to the mod queue. Especially when you're seething about being banned. You write reports like "Why is it allowed to talk?" and calling us quokkas because we don't ban someone for... posting a perfectly polite, left-wing opinion.
When you make a principled argument, you will be taken seriously. When you just go off about how very angry you are, enjoy the updoots but it doesn't mean anything.
More options
Context Copy link
If that's what they were going for they'd either get too frustrated by now and just start banning people, or just throw in the towel. The amount of "witchiness" sure isn't decreasing, and they don't seem all that upset with it.
I get some of your frustrations, but people you're upset with fall well within normal (as in: not setting out to manipulate anyone) human behavior, and conduct themselves better than 99% of the Internet.
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
You know he's earned multiple bans and is close to being permabanned for precisely those kinds of posts, right?
I also meant you, to be honest.
I'm sure you did, but like your constant reports demanding we ban all leftists, it's not an objection to be taken seriously. You think you're being persecuted and treated unfairly because I/"a handful of haters" don't like you, and this is observably, empirically untrue. You have posted some interesting things lately and we'd like you to do more of that. We'd also like you to stop flaming out every time you can't control your emotions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not really answering the question.
Edit since you edited after I responded:
I'm not saying you shouldn't post here. I'm just wondering why you post obviously rule breaking stuff, then get huffy when you get (predictably) moderated when you could post that stuff elsewhere and get a round of applause.
I don't believe I've ever complained about my comments being downvoted, and I don't even think that my comments are angry. I'd even say it's a little ironic that I'm being accused of being angry in this particular thread.
Preboonking: I don't vouch that I've never ever complained about being downvoted, but if it does happen, it's rare.
Force of habit, I guess. I've been here since the /r/ssc days, and sometimes there really is something interesting posted here.
Please accept the following in the spirit of cooperation and friendliness, even though I know it will probably not come across that way:
As we've now gone meta, I'd like to draw attention to your own comments.
A large percentage of your posts are one line drive-bys that refute other users. Moreover, when your own refutations are called into question or proven incorrect, you simply ignore and move on instead of defending your position.
While there is a place for calling other people on their bullshit, this critical behavior is what is referred to on Twitter as "being a reply guy".
If you want to improve our forum, post fewer one liners and more long form original content. Let us take down your belief system for a change. I think you have a lot to say, but are hiding underneath a protective shell. How about a top-level comment next week? Stop being the critic, and be the man in the arena. Tell us something good.
This couldn't be more incorrect. If anything, I probably respond way past the point of zero marginal returns (example: this very comment).
I made a poast about psychopaths a few months ago, but nothing good has come to mind recently. Writer's block, what are you going to do?
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
I support this ruling. I also think calling people "biowaste" crosses a big line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link