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 -
11 reports so far. 2 of them "Quality Contributions" from the usual "AAQC anything that drops a hot steaming turd on the floor" reporters. (To be fair, a couple of negative reports from people who negatively report everything they don't like, as well.)
So just to peel back the curtain a bit, there was a lot of mod discussion about your earlier post, and several of us (including me) thought it really didn't warrant a ban. We didn't roll it back (as we did last time) because it was just one day. However, I predicted you'd come back super angry and spoiling for a fight, and here we are.
I think you're actually hoping you eat another ban, because you really like to feel persecuted. But despite your repeated claims that the mod team (and me specifically) are out to get you, this is not true.
The points you make here are valid, including that it's okay to say "I believe there are no viable political solutions or legal solutions left." You can even talk about the potential/likelihood/sad inevitability of political violence. We're not going to ease up on modding anything that even smells like fedposting, but yes, I think you got an unnecessary timeout (even if you did, as is your wont, come back shrieking like the child who screams bloody murder because he got a tap). And for that reason, I'm going to let this:
go.
This time.
But to be clear, this is unacceptable and if I didn't think you'd already kind of gotten a ban you didn't deserve, I'd ban you for this. You do not get to call us drooling retards no matter how indignant you are.
Anyway, since you've blocked me, you won't read this, which doesn't mean it won't apply in the future. So be it.
@WhiningCoil this comment is a reply to a mod-hat comment by Amadan giving you a warning. You deserve the opportunity to read it.
More options
Context Copy link
From their links which do not go to youtube or what I presume are amazon pages of sex toys, it seems like the gist of the complaint is that some high school refused to remove two books from their library.
Sure, having a school which allows a book in their library which contains a crude comic of some guy (?) giving another guy (?) a BJ is exactly like the teacher of your daughter and 70% of your school board being fucking machines who are presumably going to rape her or something.
I mean, we had that story with a school district and some ruling wrt religious objections, but that sounded much more serious that this "random school has slightly naughty queer book, and even after possibly someone unsympathetic to these books being elected to some position, they still did not remove them. The soap box, the ballot box have failed, the jury box is just a waste of time so now it is time for the cartridge box!!!11"
Both women. One wearing a strap on.
There have been school board controversies over Gender Queer when parents discovered what was being presented for elementary schoolers to learn about gender identity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So, you say you didn’t roll it back because it was just one day, which sounds like there was, at a minimum, no mod consensus that the ban was justified.
In the absence of such a consensus, why is there no wrist slap of the original mod for overstepping his bounds?
If there was a wrist-slap, why is the broader user-base not aware? Justice has to be seen in order to be seen to be done.
We are not cops, and we are often not unanimous. In the event of a serious disagreement, we will very occasionally undo a previous decision, but no one "overstepped his bounds." Mods are autonomous; we will often consult with one another when we're unsure of the most appropriate course of action, but sometimes we'll just act because no one else is around. Sometimes afterwards one of us will say "Eh, maybe that was too much."
You're getting transparency here because I value that, but it's not an invitation to demand a humiliation ritual because you think a mod made a bad call.
So you guys are, internally, an anarcho-syndicalist commune that, externally, acts as an unaccountable oligarchy.
I kinda like it, actually.
Alternatively, if we consider Zorba to be the monarch, mostly focused on foreign policy and economic concerns, you guys are more like an aristocracy.
I like it even more! This is a good experiment. I wish you great success.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a post where the moderator said:
(I originally thought this was in response to WhiningCoil but I'm not sure now. That post seems to have responded to a lot of people.)
It looks to me as though this was an attempt to follow the moderator request. It's certainly annoyingly verbose and has a bunch of disclaimers.
You should really try reading an entire post before jumping on your keyboard to Au Contraire Mon Frer now and then.
If you had, you'd see I am indeed not blaming him for restating his original message with more words.
I am blaming him for prefacing it with the "drooling retards" crack.
Far be it from me to defend WhiningCoil, whose demeanor and positions I find deeply objectionable, but if you will tolerate my nitpicking - I think that in "(Drooling Retard Edition with words, words, words for the slow kids in the back who have hammers they can't be trusted with)", the opening slur refers to the kind of guy who would post a lengthy verbose message instead of a snappy call to violence, i.e. to the persona reluctantly adopted by WhiningCoil himself - not to the people who asked for the verbose version. Note that, although you quoted it as a plural, it's singular in his post.
Of course, this still leaves "the slow kids in the back..." as being obviously directed at the mod team. As I said, not seeking to help his case, merely indulging my inner pedant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm surprised that modhatted posts don't pierce the blocking feature. I can't imagine that this is the desired behavior.
I asked @ZorbaTHut, and apparently that is how it works currently. He might change it so that mods can't be blocked, but for now, that's how it is.
So if Whining gets banned because he ignored my warning... ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
(No, blocking does not make you immune to banning.)
I was going to tell you you need a double backslash to make the figure work, but for reasons I dont understand that makes both the underscores disappear, and you actually need 3. (It makes sense that they are gone: they cursive the part in between. And it makes sense that one backslash would turn it off and they are there then. But they are there at 0 backslashes also) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link