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 taking into account that Amadan's reaction here was to issue a warning, not to ban anyone. I do think there was room for sockpuppet2's request for a source to be worded in a more diplomatic way, and ultimately left-wingers being also forced to maintain decorum would indirectly encourage right-wingers to do so as well in a way that will have effects beyond what even a hypothetical even-handed and strict mod team could possibly enforce. Either way, left-wingers have no shortage of alternative places to go to - whether they will leave, as they do, because the community sasses them with impunity, or they will leave because the mods chew them out, the outcome in terms of number of left-wingers present will be the same, but in the latter case at least the forum was cleared of some boring zingers. If not all of them leave under either regime, the "chew both out" strategy is more likely to select for left-wingers that are happy to not be allowed hot takes, while the "leave both alone" strategy is more likely to select for left-wingers that are ok with an environment where everyone is just tweeting at each other.
Besides, even if I am more sympathetic to the "source?" demand here, last time I complained about moderation and actually went as far as suggesting an inversion of the verdict, I was just flat out dismissed as, quote, "engaged in the same special pleading that nearly all rules-lawyers and mod-critics bring to us, as if we'd never seen it before: 'why don't you moderate my enemies more, and my friends less?'". It's fairly disheartening to learn that merely suggesting more even-handed moderation is also sufficient to earn a lazy dismissal.
I continue having a fairly straightforward prescription to put mobs in their place, which is to apply progressively higher standards to posts in proportion to the number of upvotes and approval they get, up to "it better be an effortpost that could stand up to adversarial lawyering of all the rules" at +40 or so. Circlejerks would quickly get the air taken out of them if any attempts to boost a take you like are tantamount to condemning it to have to live up to a less attainable standard, and you could only really feel like you are helping your team if you are upvoting takes that will actually live up to it. I was thinking of pitching a meta discussion about this at some point, if I can muster the time and energy.
More options
Context Copy link