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 -
Are you trying to convince us with this information that is irrelevant to anyone but you, or convince yourself? If yourself why bother us with it?
If it's not the orwellian stranglehold on all information in the west that is fueling the vibe change will your team finally relinquish control of it? Free Durov? Stop lawfaring Elon Musk. Maybe I can finally browse reddit for news w/o it being freeze framed photos of Kennedy stopped at just the right moment to make him look as stupid as possible "organically" voted to the front page.
I doubt it though. This post basically reads like, "It's not totalitarianism! it's Kamala's youthfulness!"
If you were trying to convince us and not yourself than I have to say no, I still think you lot are totalitarians.
This is all personal attack and booing your outgroup.
Even if your uncharitable reading of @netstack and his "affiliation and interests" (as @theory only slightly less obnoxiously put it) was correct, people are allowed to post about "vibes" and impressions and opinions they have about what's going on in politics. Indeed, that makes up a large share of the posts here. If you think his reading is off, or what he perceives is because he's biased and in a bubble, you can say that. You cannot say "Shut up and go away, we don't want your kind or your opinions here."
So we can't post links to well thought out articles without wasting time regurgitating parts of it in our own words or adding pointless takes, but we can just randomly showerthought now?
You cannot post bare links. If you feel it is a waste of your time to be asked to tell people why you are posting something and why you think it's worth discussing, then this is not the place to post those links.
You can post things that you think are relevant and interesting. It is possible someone else will think it is a "random showerthought," but they will be expected to respond to you with civility.
I mean, my mom and dad like Harris is pretty short shrift for a post.
I think it was a great top level post. Plus it’s retroactively validated by the amount of discussion it kicked off.
We are always told “discussion doesn’t validate whether a top level post is good or not.” What makes you think it is great? It reminds me of Tom Friedman talking about his cab driver.
Yes, that's a valid point to bring up. A bare link that occasions a fascinating reply doesn't itself become a good post - but I would nonetheless be thankful in retrospect that that bare link was posted, if the reply it solicited was good enough.
It's an earnest and straightforward anecdote about an interesting and relevant topic.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really get the sense @netstack is among the "you lot" your post refers to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link