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 appreciate the feedback. So here's my take, and I will plead with you and @SteveAgain and all the other critics to actually read what I say.
First, regarding @justawoman. You say we ignored "very obvious bait." I told her I did not like the performative "quitting" and that we weren't going to delete her account for her. Beyond that, please be specific: what actions do you think we should have taken? Should I have banned her for that post? Being obnoxious about how you're going to take your toys and go home is cause to be told to leave or stop with the theatrics, which is what I did. When people keep doing the same obnoxious schtick over and over, eventually yes, they will be told they'll get banned if they keep it up. (That's why I modded @SteveAgain; the first time you say "Oh, I see you're letting leftists get away with everything," we'll patiently point out how you are mistaken. The tenth time, we're getting fed up. He was not modded for that sort of ankle-biting the first few times.)
As an aside, what do you mean by "powermod"? Because the only powermod here is Zorba. If I am more visible, it's just because I am more active, not because I have more authority than any other mod. I suppose de facto that does give me more authority, but I just want to clarify, if you were under the impression that I am "in charge" of modding, that I am not.
As to your point: when I said "doing a good job," I did not mean I find her arguments particularly compelling or convincing. (And as another aside to @justawoman, at the risk of being accused again of being "pitying/condescending," that I'm sorry you're the example under discussion here, it's not meant to call you out.) I meant that she is clearly very woke and very feminist and willing to stand by her opinions despite being dogpiled and downvoted heavily. That takes a certain amount of determination. I am less impressed by the repeated threats to leave because we're such a hive of scum and villainy, but I really do hope she sticks around because some diversity in viewpoints is good. It was not meant to be pitying or condescending. I was being as polite as I can be given that I don't actually agree with her much, and that as you have demonstrated, any expression of personal opinion by a mod is given disproportionate weight.
This isn't entirely correct. We aren't trying to keep it "balanced," we're trying to keep it fair. @justawoman has in fact been warned (with mod hat!) several times. She is not getting extra slack for being a leftist. Was I maybe a little nicer to her than I would be to a rightist throwing a temper tantrum? Possibly, but rightists who throw temper tantrums usually do so because they really want to hate on their enemies and they're pissed off that we don't just let them do that. I plead guilty as charged to being less sympathetic to that.
So with regard to @upsidedownmotter - as I said, he has been warned about his behavior. But as for that specific post? My personal opinion is that:
is not exactly a detailed or high quality argument, but other than disagreeing with it (and/or being pissed off that you disagree) what rule do you think is broken? He added all the caveats we expect people to add when they want to make an assertion about their outgroup. Argumentum ad Hitlerum is obnoxious, you're right! But it is not in itself against the rules. If you think comparing rehabilitation of South Africa and apartheid to rehabilitation of Hitler is a bad argument, that is what the Motte is for: to advance (potentially bad) arguments and be tested against those who disagree. I am not being rhetorical: on what grounds do you think that argument should be prohibited? We do not prohibit bad arguments!
Being downvoted to hell is a good indicator that a post presents an argument badly. It is less of a good indicator that it's a post that breaks the rules. A lot of people really don't seem to understand that crappy arguments are not inherently against the rules, and that failure to mod someone for them does not mean the mods agree with them.
For example: "Trans women are women!" is a post that would almost certainly draw a lot of reports for "Inflammatory claim without evidence" or "Consensus-building." But it is not actually against the rules for someone to assert that if that's what they believe. If you posted it as a one-liner, I'd probably warn you that it's low effort and you actually need to make an argument, not just assert things. But saying something that is very unpopular, pisses people off, (and that I personally disagree with) is not against the rules.
To repeat the obvious, which I have futilely pointed out many times: when someone posts a bad argument, and you reply with a personal attack against the poster and I mod you, that does not mean I agree with the OP or think their argument was good! It means that someone writing a bad argument does not mean the rules don't apply to responses.
This is why, incidentally, we have people regularly posting about how the Holocaust is a hoax and everything is the fault of Jews and not getting banned. Despite being reported a lot. Sometimes they get modded when they become too heated or get too broad in their generalizations about Jews- and we get criticisms that we're just protecting Jews and trying to ban wrongthink. I recently went back and forth with @DecaDeciHuman about this. He repeatedly claimed that we have banned "certain viewpoints" but won't tell us what those viewpoints are.
Can you see how exchanges like this, or attacks by the likes of @SteveAgain, who ignores every time I respond to him at length as I am doing with you now, make me more skeptical of people who earnestly insist that they really believe we (or I) are biased and not actually listening to feedback?
Explicit modhat warnings. I agree that in the first instance you did say what you did so I suppose that counts, but the second case here definitely warranted one.
Might not be the exact term I'm looking for, but by that I mean
the previous one at least was something someone actually told youvs
I'm sure you get the point. I'll stop if you think I'm doing this in bad faith, but I believe the term fits.
I'm perfectly fine with the arguments themselves, people can and routinely do assert that [thing] is literally Hitler/Russian propaganda. My objection is not content. My objection is the mode of argument that encapsulates it, e.g. implicit association, passive aggression, selective amnesia, etc. (Well okay maybe not the argumentum ad Hitlerum part, I confess, I think that ~99% of references/comparisons to Hitler are made in bad faith solely for purposes of tarring by association - which here I believe was especially visible, posted straight with not even a token attempt at elaboration.)
I'm not saying bad arguments should be prohibited, but at the very least bad arguments (and you seem aware they're bad) should serve as a mitigating circumstance when people respond with more heat than necessary. Otherwise baitposting seems too exploitable, if you wanna do a little trolling your job is simply
pretending to be retardedusing a lot of passive voice and Darkly HintingTM to goad people into making the first ad hominem that gets them modded, exhibit A here. You can argue this is a restraint issue and Nigga Just Like Walk Away From The Screen, and you sort of do -I suppose I can't really argue with that, you can always deflect and say you expect better from posters, but that's the thing with bait, posting it takes far less effort than it takes to regard it seriously and answer in good faith. Comments in this vein (case 2) actively shit up/derail conversations and are IMO straightforwardly bad, shedding very little light (Hitler bad, who knew?) but very much inviting heat; top-level posts (case 1) are technically beneath suspicion since in that case the resulting "discussion" wasn't anything particularly bad, but they still violate the rules on speaking plainly, and the passive-aggressive mode of communication doesn't seem very conducive to light vs. heat either.
As I said I really do sympathize, but maintain that your skepticism here looks a lot like cavalier dismissal to me, which I believe is not the way - I agree the reference to affirmative action was unnecessary heat, but as I outlined above (the "more bluntly..." part) it's IMO not unfounded. I do however agree that "any expression of personal opinion by a mod is given disproportionate weight", I'll try to remember jannies are people and assign less weight to that in the future.
Thanks for the measured response, I now better understand the mod position and defer to it.
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to clarify pretty, like, hard that the very worst opinion of mine of peoples’ opinions on this site of which I have changed my mind to continue posting on is “ignorant” or “hypocritical” because I personally subscribe to the Plato approach to the concept ignorance which is it being the root of all evil therefore I literally can’t use “scum” or “villany” in addition to not believing anyone here is very malicious in their intents; additional evidence being I have never typed said words save now (//∇//)\
More options
Context Copy link
He is implying that Jeroboam is rehabilitation SA and therefore is connected to basically Nazi sympathizers. It isn’t so much an argument (zero real facts to support the claim) but a sneer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link