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 -
The scenario I'm imagining is calling someone (say, Epstein) one. If that amounts to a derogatory generalisation about Jews, how does calling the artist a "leftist creep" not amount to the same generalisation about an even broader group of people (leftists)?
Conversely, I'm not arguing against "leftist creep" on the basis of it being insulting to this particular public figure. Instead, I think, as you (correctly, in my eyes) perceive for the Jewish example, that calling anyone a "leftist creep" is implying that the creepiness is related to being a leftist, which is an attack on a broad group of people including potential posters here.
That was not me, and I would not advocate for any restrictions on that. As I said, it's not about insulting the public figure, but about using public figures to insult potential forum participants (by imputing bad qualities and implying them to be a consequence of tribal membership): e.g. calling Harris a "leftist bore" would be bad.
Using "Jewish" or "leftist" or "Republican" as a negative adjective might be a flag for boo outgrouping, but not necessarily. You are the second person today who seems to want to drag out a thread as long as possible with "Can someone say this? How about this? How about if they say this? Why is this okay but not that?" I don't feel like these threads are productive, because unless we can arrive at "My judgment is perfectly in accord with yours, and also I can specify every possible scenario for future reference," you're not going to be satisfied. I believe I explained my reasoning adequately, and if you find it unconvincing, I will refer you, once more, to El Hefe to persuade him that we should change our moderation approach.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link