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 -
There’s always a war in the war room. I don’t think of my side as a party in this fight originally (I don’t like your ideology, but I don’t want it censored either). I’m in favour of niceness community and civilization, free speech and all good things. But just because I want everyone to cooperate doesn’t mean I cooperate with defectors. If you cooperate with him and refuse to eject him, your side looks like it’s defecting, polluting the commons. In that case, defecting against your side would be justified.
Civility is great, niceness I'm suspicious of.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not a mod. I have no power to eject anybody. Do you mean that I should be responding to each and every one of his posts with some variant of “this is a bad post”? In this particular case, he posted a link to an article by an author I like very much, and which I think is very interesting and makes for great discussion. And, lo and behold, a good discussion is in fact happening below the post. If you believe that it would have been better for me to refrain from interacting with the post and its replies in any way, you’re welcome to that take, but I disagree. To do so would have been to allow the only replies to the post to be ones that are in disagreement with it, and by extension with my own views.
Is it your contention that even if he was bad faith through and through, you should still pretend that he wasn’t, because the mods didn’t do anything, or because the discussion is ‘good’ ?
You don’t need mod powers to call him out. ‘bad actor ‘,’ ignore the troll’ etc. work. Yes, I expect you to do this, out of basic fairness. I understand that your views may therefore be less represented, and your favourite authors less discussed. It’s irrelevant. Through his illegitimate posting, everyone else’s views are less discussed.
The only reason why he isn’t banned more quickly is because you and the others treat him with the respect he clearly isn’t deserving of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link