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 -
Lol, reluctant. As if it isn't plainly obvious what your goal is here - a grand display of your power. "Ha ha ha" you say, "every single comment in this chain by both of us was reported multiple times, but I will enforce this one on you because I can, because this exchange didn't end with you slinking away defeated and I will not accept that result."
PS my mental model of you is flawless.
I'm going to indulge you for a moment because why not.
Yes. For exactly the reasons I stated, and I also because I do not disagree with the object-level claim, yet the rules here clearly require you to actually support negative generalizations about a group, not just flippantly toss them into a one-line boo light. And also because the person who reported Hoff was being petty (many, many reports are basically a handful of people vindictively reporting either people or arguments they don't like), but in this case, they did have a point.
Dude, if I wanted to grandly display my power, I would be using it a lot more than I do. For example, when you jump on me in a discussion you weren't involved in with a load of personal attacks just because you've got beef, you are pretty clearly testing me to see if I will wield my "power." You would probably love it if I modhatted you (as I almost certainly would if you were crawling up someone else's ass like this). You'd make for a very dramatic victim of the system, I'm sure. Yet I enforce the rules as impartially as I can, even when confronted by belligerent pests trying to get a rise out of me, as seems to have become your idle hobby.
This is absolute nonsense. Even @Hoffmeister25 agreed his comment was bad.
"Every comment in this chain" was not reported. A few were (I don't think any of them received multiple reports), and most of the reports were spurious. (The vast majority of the reports we get are dismissed without action.) In many previous exchanges with Hoff, I've let the matter drop after we've both had our say - often with him having the last word - so your claims are flatly and objectively untrue.
I'm sure you think so. Yet the objective and observable evidence says otherwise. Carry on, my dude.
I did to you what you did to hoffmeister. I used your words to develop an uncharitable model of you based on incomplete information (how would I know which posts were reported or how many times?), deployed it and then insisted on its accuracy despite obvious flaws. I think that's a bad way to behave on the motte, and I think you should stop it.
I understand it falls afoul of the speak plainly rule, however past conversations have taught me that no matter how I phrase it, if I simply tell you you have made a mistake you will dismiss me automatically. And reporting you is pointless as I have explained before. So this time I made the same argument you did, so you could discover the problems with it for yourself.
Yes, I know that's what you thought you were doing. I saw the words, I knew you undoubtedly fancied yourself to be making quite a clever point.
Yes, I know you believe that. You keep saying that because you keep making demands, accusations, and statements which I consider and then tell you whether or not I think they are valid (usually not) and since I do not agree with your assessments, you make snide comments about how I am "automatically dismissing you because it's you," even though until you started making a hobby of this, you were barely on my radar.
Reporting me isn't pointless per se; generally when someone reports me (which happens a lot), I do not dismiss the report myself, I let another mod do so. On rare occasions this does result in one of us speaking to the other. 99% of the time, reports on mods are spurious complaints because someone doesn't like the mod or doesn't like that the comment in question was modded. But sure, report me if you want the other mods to look at my comment and decide if it was bad. If you think the mods just automatically dismiss any report on another mod, that is not true, but it certainly true that our priors at this point are heavily weighted.
You do you. But for future reference, this sort of thing, randomly jumping on someone in a subthread because you have a grudge against them, is not acceptable either, and would have gotten you modded except you are still benefiting from the extra latitude we usually give people who want to vent at mods.
Actually what I thought was "For fucks sake, how can someone who has told me off for mind reading say the words" I don't think I do have a poor mental model of you." with a straight face? How can he not see why it would be a bad idea for a mod to set a precedent of ignoring when someone tells you you are modelling their mind incorrectly? And how am I even supposed to bring this up with a guy who would set himself on fire if I said burns hurt?" I didn't feel clever, I didn't feel smart, I didn't feel victimised or belligerent, I felt exasperated.
I keep saying it because every single piece of evidence I have points that way. Even after I expressed my deduction, every single interaction I have with you goes the same way. It seems pretty indisputable at this stage. But you reckon you usually disagree with my assessment, which means there are times you've agreed. Link one. If you can't do that, at least tell me how the motte benefits from allowing people to insist upon their mental models of other motters when they are told they are wrong?
Also if you knew what I was doing, why did you reply the way you did? Why didn't you just address the point you knew I was making, instead of point by point refuting every line of the post? Or as well as? Why did you fill the post with bait, claiming I would love to be modded, was playing the victim, am a belligerent pest whose hobby is to get a rise out of you, and likening me to a comedic caricature?
What advantage did you gain by playing along with my ruse in exactly the way I would expect you to respond if you hadn't seen through it?
I am not "playing for advantage," I'm answering questions straightforwardly. Thank you for reminding me once again why I should simply say "Good day sir" more often.
So to respond to my ruse you ignored my point and gave straightforward answers to questions you knew didn't need answers, and to respond to my straightforward series of serious questions you ignored all of them and dismissed me as deceptive.
Your moral grandstanding would work better if you hadn't spent the last two posts trying to provoke me, fyi. And if it wasn't based entirely on the fact I said "advantage" and "playing" in the same sentence. But I understand you are constrained by factors outside your control, so I will take this post in the spirit it was meant and say thank you for hearing me out.
You began the engagement by accusing me of lying, and continued in bad faith straight down the line. Good day, sir.
What's this? You again? I said good day sir!
This post was sent to the past by FuturePost! FuturePost: Making yesterday's tomorrows yesterday's todays, tomorrow.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link