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 think the critical issue is whether or not this is indeed "arsehole" behaviour. I don't think that curating the content that gets promoted on your own website makes you an arsehole (either as a corporate entity, or as an individual employee) and I suspect anyone who understands why Youtube uses algorithms to curate its website would agree with me. Even more so given that what is going on here is demotion of sexual content on a site which is very public about demoting sexual content. "This rule is almost never enforced, but you enforced it selectively against me" is a reasonable callout of what is probably arsehole behaviour. "This rule is almost always enforced, I demand you jump through an expensive hoop to explain why I am different to the small number of people who get away with it" is unhinged.
Given that the vast majority of people who will randomly revenge-murder an arsehole (and even more so people who will shoot up the offices of a corporate arsehole with inevitable collateral damage to innocent grunt-tier employees) are unhinged, using revenge-murder as a stochastic disincentive for arseholery doesn't create the correct incentive - behaviour that actually makes you an arsehole can be very different from behaviour that makes an unhinged person think you are one.
More options
Context Copy link