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 -
Well I am horribly sorry that I have low tolerance for "shooting my own feet off and thus destroying what would otherwise be a good argument".
Nine people got their feelings hurted? Is that a new record?
EDIT: Number alone doesn't tell me much. If one person whose opinion I value says "this thing is bad", that weighs more with me than if nine million people whose opinions don't count in my view say "it's fantastic!"
Since I have no idea who the Nine Reporters were - nor am I asking you to tell me! nor should you! - then for me it's a case of:
I gave you the numbers because it's unusual for a comment to receive so many reports, and that is usually (not always) an indication that your comment was bad. Obviously we're not going to tell you who said what, but if you think nine people reporting you isn't enough reason to reconsider your spleen-posting and you just dismiss at as "people got their feelings hurted (sic)" (really, is that really your model for people reporting this post, that the Motte is full of climate radicals who were offended that you went off on a Tumblr climate radical?), then it makes me think that this performative navel-gazing was not sincere.
When you double down with this nonsense (which I literally can't even decipher):
you certainly do not give the impression that you actually care about the quality of your discourse.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting you children haven't read anything older than the Relatable Material in your high school English curriculum 😁
It's an older form of English (or, if I'm being exact, Lallans) which is a motto attributed to this person. Try sounding it out, you'll work it out!
But if that genuinely is too difficult, let me translate it into current American:
They have said. What say they? Let them say.
To paraphrase, it means broadly "So what if anonymous nobodies are saying this and that about me? Talk is cheap, let their tongues wag, I care not a straw whatever they may chatter".
I hope that helps with all your Gibberish Translation Needs!
(Historical illiteracy: never not entertaining to me).
Well I'll pull the trigger then.
You've got a lot of quality contributions. I would hate to see you leave, and you've been a good contributor for long enough that just about anything would result in, at most, a warning.
But going on an unbridled flamespree is past "just about anything". No, you do not get to flame people like that, nobody gets to flame people like that.
Three-day ban.
For the record, I really do hope you come back and keep posting, just not like that.
More options
Context Copy link
Seriously? This is where you want to go?
I'm not going to pull the trigger here, but considering I was trying to talk you down and you have doubled and tripled down on being directly antagonistic and condescending to a mod telling you to chill out, I'm going to let another mod decide whether this should earn you a ban.
(And btw, I'm older than you. "Historically illiterate," well, maybe when it comes to 16th century Scottish witticisms.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's an old saying, purportedly from Scots, expressing disrespect for public reproach. "They have said. What say they? Let them say."
We must remember he is American, after all 😁 I believe I first encountered a version of it in a James Bond novel, though equally it could have been in E.R.R. Eddison's Mezentian books.
Probably not to be found in "I Am A Non-Binary Poly Trans Girl" reading text for sixth graders, which is the kind of material I'd imagine Amadan is most familiar with.
Thanks for the implicit recommendation; is "The Worm Ouroboros" a reasonable place to start on that?
Of course, you might have to get back to me after the expiry of the ban you're inexplicably begging for...
I think I'm unbanned now, so, yeah.
Most finished of the lot, and sets out the entire world there. It's a preliminary novel in that it doesn't mention Zimiamavia directly but only as a reference to "that land of the blessed dead" on Mars, while the main plot of the Demons versus the Witches is going on. The frame-story of Lessingham in England doesn't really matter until we get to the Trilogy proper, where Mistress of Mistresses starts in Zimiamvia and Lessingham is a character there (not though quite the same as the English nobleman).
The Worm Ouroboros is complete in itself, and if you can manage to read your way through it, you'll know whether or not Eddison's style is for you.
It also has probably the best villain ever, Lord Gro, whom every reader loves, even though objectively he's sneaky, treacherous, back-stabbing, turn-coat with no fixed principles (save one or two) whom even the Witch-King rebukes once for "no, that's too evil a plan" 😁
Here's a review by someone else who was won over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link