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's why conservatives have no problem with private bodies (e.g. social media) censoring right wing opinions I suppose.
I have no problem with that as long as the rules are spelled out in advance. This forum is moderated and I’ve yet to see anyone complain that much because the rules are fair, consistent and promote good conversation. It’s just simply the cost of being around other people. I don’t object to fine restaurants excluding people who come in shorts because they provide the kind of environment I want.
I do object when social media claims to be open to all people yet are clearly skewing enforcement to favor one group over another. If you’re doing that, then you can’t claim to be a neutral gathering place. But if you’re openly saying “hey come to bluesky we’re Twitter, but liberal. “ if I don’t want that I simply don’t go there, much like if I don’t like wearing dress I don’t go to fancy restaurants. I’d object if a fast food place suddenly decided that im not allowed because I’m not wearing a dress.
More options
Context Copy link
Have you forgotten that they were doing much of this censorship at government behest?
Yes, but what made it bad is not that the government was involved. What made it bad was that the content of what was pushed was bad, and what was good was blocked.
Free speech just isn’t coherent outside a reasonably monocultural environment. Nobody is actually going to fund or tolerate people who despise them and wish to destroy them.
What made it worst, in the American free speech tradition, is that the government was involved. Since every censor will tell you they're blocking what's bad and allowing what's good, and the fact that they ARE the censor means they have the power to make that claim, your version boils down to might makes right.
Yes. That is why I no longer advocate for free speech.
Firstly, the ‘only government shouldn’t censor’ line seems totally arbitrary to me - it’s okay if Twitter censors and whips up hostile mobs, but then it becomes unacceptable if they talked to an FBI agent before doing so. And once you move to a more expansive definition the whole thing just falls apart. If I don’t like what you say, can I avoid buying services from you? Can I suggest the same to my friend? Can I tell people I don’t hang out with people who say X and they shouldn’t either? If yes, you have social pressure and AstroTurfed boycotts, which doesn’t sound much like free speech to me. If no, then my free speech is being threatened.
Secondly, it feels quokka-like to the point of being suicidal. Why on Earth would I give free speech to people who are openly organising to deny me of it? To destroy my culture and to harm me personally?
Ultimately might DOES make right (as the British-supporting Americans who were forced to flee from Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness learned). I would rather pursue might than argue about rights with people who have no interest in my wellbeing.
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