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 -
@cake, I have removed this post. (Though something technical is up with thread removal right now, so we'll see if it sticks.)
There is nothing glaringly wrong with this post, except for the way in which it substantially increases my priors that you are engaged in some kind of trolling, baiting, or otherwise dishonest engagement. This is a tough thing to moderate for, because it can be very tricky to know when someone is engaging honestly. But there are ways to weaponize another person's charity, and there are ways to work within the letter of the law to violate the spirit of it. This is why we have the "egregiously obnoxious" rule, and it is a rule that, for example, encompasses single-issue posting.
What you've done here is write a response to another user, that would fit just fine in the thread you already started. But you made it a top-level post, basically the forum equivalent of a "thread bump." Why did you do this? The only reason I can think of, is to get more engagement on the issue. But you already started by copy-pasting a pretty bad essay, then doing just the bare minimum I required of you so you could re-post that essay, and then--even though you generated tons of responses--you barely replied to any of them in any really substantial way. And here you are, instead of replying to other users directly, "bumping" your apparent hobbyhorse.
When someone seems to be doing something sneaky once, we notice! When you do it three times in 24 hours, the fact that you're not overtly breaking specific letter-of-the-law rules is not enough to protect you.
Knock it off.
More options
Context Copy link