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 -
The really funny part is banning people for describing the exact perspective of this user in terms he would agree with himself, re.
There needs to be some discussion about this. I'd be happy with a rule requiring all claims of "this is what leftists believe" to be backed up by quotes. But there needs to be some way to say "look, they openly say they have no intention of communicating with you, let alone coexisting with you" without breaking the rules, especially when literally everyone involved on all sides agrees it's true.
I’m at the laundromat for context as to why I haven’t responded to other comments yet, since my main mode of using this site is lurking on my phone in-between things. Anyway, just to clarify, I am verily not a man. I’m just a woman.
Additionally, I try to be clear about putting subjective opinions as “I think” or “I believe” in the spirit of debate. Yes, I still believe not only subjectively but objectively social conservatism should be rejected by civilized society. But since I don’t have nor want to find the evidence suitable for making such a claim that “it’s not just my opinion, objectively social conservatism is social cancer and everyone here who believes it has drunk the Koolaid” here, and therefore can’t, I try to keep everything within the realm of what I personally think. It is just my opinion.
That is to say, a long winded way of saying I can’t represent all of leftism, anymore than I think you represent all of, uh, I dunno. Everything else? I don’t know you sincerely. I’ve lurked on here for years since reddit times and I only remember Walterodim because of the cheeky Witcher reference and Amadan because of the big red color on their name.
More options
Context Copy link
If you want to have a good faith discussion of this, I will be happy to discuss it with you. I just have low expectations because all previous attempts have resulted in you accusing us of running cover for leftists, being hypocrites, etc.
The key point you are missing is that what one person says is not representative of an entire group, and that's why we have an entire paragraph in the rules about being specific about who you're talking about:
So when you say "look, they openly say they have no intention of communicating with you, let alone coexisting with you" - who is they? Because it's certainly not "leftists." It is definitely some leftists. Every bad thing you have ever said about leftists - everything you've ever been modded for for saying about leftists - if you said "There exist leftists who say and think this," I would agree with you. And if you said "That person who's posting is openly saying he has no intention of communicating with us," you would not be modded for that.
But when you take that person as an example and say "He's a leftist, therefore he proves that leftists are blahblahblah..." I mean, do you even see the distinction I am making here, or am I talking to air? You think we're ignoring the behavior of individual bad actors, when those bad actors usually get modded. But because those bad actors exist, you want us to treat every leftist as being the same, and then get mad that we don't ban leftists on sight.
And if someone comes rolling in with "Right-wingers are a bunch of racist, sexist, anti-semitic homophobes" - well, some people in this forum wear all those labels proudly! And yet it is clearly not true of all rightists, such generalizations are clearly intended to be derogatory, and we would mod someone who said that. And you'd be angry at us if we didn't mod someone for saying that.
I don't know why it is so hard for you to distinguish between "What this jerk says" and "This jerk is speaking for everyone who votes like him and thus they can all be treated as interchangeable."
https://www.themotte.org/post/1229/quality-contributions-report-for-october-2024/267191?context=8#context
Literally a quote from naraburns two months ago saying you guys do affirmative action moderation for leftists already. If you know me as well as you claim, you know nothing offends me more than "it's not happening and it's a good thing it is, you're crazy for noticing" tactics.
That's the level of good faith I expect from discussions about moderation here, which I suppose means I'm breaking my rule of not engaging with manipulation attempts
Just to add to @Amadan's take on this, it's hard for me to take you very seriously in a discussion about "good faith" when you link to that comment I made, without also referencing my direct reply to you in that thread where I elaborated:
(Emphasis added.) Your refusal to engage in open, honest, charitable discussion of these nuances is a far, far cry from us engaging in "manipulation attempts." When you ask a question and get an answer, then pop up months later writing as though you never read or understood that answer, like... I don't know what more I can possibly say to you about it.
I mean, your answer was "it depends on what you mean," and you confirmed that you do go out of your way to give extra leeway to "heterodox" posters who get "hot under the collar," which obviously seems to include posters like "antifa" and the kind of rude behavior that results from hot-under-the-collarness.
I don't think you're manipulative, and don't have a problem extending mod charity to real minority posters rather than ones that show up to troll and bait; notice it wasn't me complaining about your moderation in that thread--it was 4bpp, and I only jumped in to ask that question because other mods had denied it before.
Most of that is that you moderate without the snarky comments amadan uses to bait out behavior he can ban people for
No one gave antifa extra leeway for being a leftist. I figured out who he was almost immediately, nonetheless extended a little benefit of the doubt (as I do to most sockpuppets) and told him to chill the fuck out. He of course did not, and barely lasted a day.
Oh, we're back to this false, disproven accusation again, are we?
In this latest round of you accusing mods of bad faith and manipulation, multiple mods have patiently explained your errors. And do you admit your error? No. You double down on the accusations.
Even if by "mods" you mean only me, I have repeatedly responded to your accusations by inviting you to post a link. You either whistle and exit, stage left, or you post a link that doesn't show what you say it does, and when this is explained to you, you whistle and exit, stage left.
One might say, this is manipulative and gaslighting behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think @naraburns and I disagree on this issue, but it depends on what you mean by "affirmative action moderation for leftists." Personally, I have never (consciously) modded leftists differently than rightists. The thought has never crossed my mind "This person is a leftie, therefore I should go easier on him." The closest I might come to agreeing with this take is that leftists are observably downvoted and reported en masse, and so when I see someone is being dogpiled and everything he posts gets reported for left-leaning wrongthink, I am more likely to disregard all but the most egregious reports.
(It may surprise you to learn that this applies to some of our fringe right-posters too, such as @SecureSignals, who is reported constantly but only modded on a tiny fraction of the reports he draws.)
Well, you are very close to doing what you were warned not to do very recently, which is attacking the mods and accusing them of bad faith.You could have posted the above link and asked me "Don't you think this counts as running cover for leftists?" And I would have answered you reasonably and in good faith (as I did above). Instead you jumped straight to "You're a liar, hah caught you, you manipulator!" So now you got an answer, but you have also annoyed me and eroded the tiny sliver of charity I have left to extend to you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link