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 -
That is not an accurate assessment of the content of the post in question. It may be a accurate assessment of the poster's intention, but they did not actually demand that anyone shut up, they did not (directly) call anyone a Nazi. They drew a comparison between positive descriptions of Apartheid South Africa and positive descriptions of Hitler elsewhere, and they offered a link to make it clear what they were talking about. It's not a particularly good post, but it is a fair one.
I don’t even know what you mean by drawing a distinction between the content of the post and the intent of the post.
A is like B. Bs are Zs. Therefore seems likely that you are also a Z if you push for A. This is all the more clear when Zs are universally hated.
What other point outside of trying to tar your opponent is there to bringing up Nazis? It is an attempt to poison the well.
Calling the post a fair one suggests you are being way too formal and not understanding the basic nuance here.
Formality is how standards are maintained, and I understand the basic nuance just fine. I am not claiming that the post in question was a good post, much less that the argument it made explicitly was a good argument, and even less that the argument it implied was a good argument. I am claiming that it is fair play by the rules of this forum as I understand them, and that the reply I modded was not.
You are not allowed to call someone a Nazi out of the blue here. If they say that they're a huge fan of Hitler, you are allowed to say "I think you're a Nazi, because of the statement you just made." If they say things that imply they're a big fan of Hitler, you're allowed to say "your statements indicate Hitler fandom for these reasons." You can even do this here while being objectively wrong, so long as you appear to be actually trying to make an effortful argument backed with evidence. Yes, this means that pretty much anyone can, with sufficient effort and hedging, call pretty much anyone else here a Nazi. The solution to this is to give consideration to those who argue well, stunt on the ones who argue poorly, and to ban those who don't bother to argue at all.
And sure, this applies to accusing people of wanting Red Army soldiers to gangrape German women too. But you have to actually make an argument, show your work and bring evidence. A bare accusation doesn't cut it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link