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 -
Strong disagree -- I'd say this is lighthearted enough to even rise to the level of 'kind' (or at least 'not unkind'), but it is surely true and necessary.
I'd definitely rather read this than a bunch of posts about how leftists are a bunch of pussies (even if though I am personally sympathetic to the underlying complaint) -- this is a bad warning.
Yeah, I disagree that it is true, and strongly disagree that it is necessary.
How about neither? Because you know, "leftists are a bunch of pussies" is also something we would moderate.
The post is not quintessentially awful. It didn't get a ban. I expressed my own reservations in the warning. But it drew multiple reports and I felt like it was worth my time to point out that this is not really a good example of people who disagree having a fruitful discussion about that disagreement. This is more like a good example of how to playfully signal to someone that you regard them as low-status. I might even be persuaded that it is "not [at least entirely] unkind," but the rule isn't "be not unkind."
Just downthread of another marginal mod warning currently on the front page, for your reading pleasure:
https://www.themotte.org/post/317/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/55391?context=8#context
I thought the policy was "tone over content"? CPAR's tone here is lighthearted and funny (also self-deprecating; "I hope the rest of you will forgive me for poking fun at things that I'm often guilty of myself."), and the content is something we could all take to heart. (ie. "necessary")
There's literally several responses to the effect of 'I feel seen' -- obviously the post is engaging in hyperbole, but most of the points are reformulations of classic complaints about the rational-o-sphere.
I'm disturbed that something that feels like it could be lifted from a c. 2012 Scott-post is attracting reports, and moreso that the correct response is not seen as "screw 'em if they can't take a joke".
I am concerned too, it is blowing my mind that that post was reported enough to get a warning. And yeah, it might not be facts, but it has a lot of truth to it. I wonder if it's hitting some people harder than others? Or maybe it's strategic, a retaliation against raptr or left wingers in general for some slight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link