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 -
I think this is extremely silly and enshrines into the rules the disputed premises of one side of the culture war (i.e., that pronouns refer to self-described gender and not sex). I think that's quite uncharacteristic of The Motte. Why not just let people use whatever pronouns they want to use for other people, and if there's confusion then other users can ask for clarification?
Because people tend to use these things as a way to reinforce their beliefs and make it a hostile environment for others.
I think this falls generally under the "don't be antagonistic", "don't enforce ideological conformity", and "provide evidence in proportion to how partisan your claim is" clauses.
Aside from pronouns, does this rule apply to qualifiers as well?
Should commenters be modded for referring to Hamas as terrorists instead of the self-identified 'islamic resistance movement'? Using 'incel shooter' instead of 'supreme gentleman'?
The general antagonism clause applies as it always does, as do a bunch of adjacent rules. No individual word is banned, no individual word makes you exempt from the rest of the rules.
I could write both bannable and perfectly-fine comments with any of those above phrases. If you want to come up with a more specific example, I can tell you how I'd judge it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some might argue that not being allowed to use the pronouns we think accurately apply to someone is enforcing ideological conformity.
As I said, "everyone finds them slightly uncomfortable". I'll take that over "one side is perfectly happy with it and the other side is not happy at all".
Unless I'm misunderstanding, "You must adhere to progressive orthodoxy on pronouns or avoid them altogether" does not sound to me like the middle compromise position you're making it out to be.
Not that you should particularly care what I think, but I will say: in all my years here, I've never until now been surprised or disappointed by your decisions pertaining to the rules and administration of this community. Hell, I'm not even sure I've seen a modhat decision by you that I've disagreed with. You've always had an uncanny ability to impartially administrate and to advocate the sort of truly neutral principles that are essential to the flourishing of a community like this. And I'm not at all saying this take of your ruins all that.
I hope, for my unblemished account's sake, that some story about a trans person doesn't become the culture war topic du jour any time soon. I also think that you'd see immense pushback from the community if those rules you propose were actually enforced. I suspect people just haven't read your comment above because it's buried in the previous week's culture war roundup thread.
There's also "you can use 'they' regardless of whether the person in question is OK with it".
I'd say the strong trans-approving position would be "you are required to use the pronouns they want, and if you try to avoid those pronouns, you're a bad person for doing so". We're providing two different ways to avoid that, both of which the extremist left would disapprove of.
For what it's worth, this has come up a few times now, and trans has occasionally been in the news between now and then, and it's just never been an issue. I do think you're overstating the issue here.
Personally, I would make a big distinction between what you're "forced" to read and what you're "forced" to write.
Sure, there is a certain symmetry in that everyone on here might have to read things they disagree with, that's a big part of the project. But I would claim there's a big asymmetry in favor of side A of an issue if only side B has to write around that issue by choosing to either say things they believe to be false or engage in contortionism. Especially when it involves something as hard to avoid as an entire word class.
I assume you'll still be willing to accept some write-asymmetries to encourage a side that is underrepresented on this particular site to come here and engage, which might be a good idea overall, but I just wanted to make this read/write distinction very explicit.
Overall though, I want to end this on a less critical note and second HelmedHorror's comment that you do a very good job keeping this ship afloat.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait so this post is against the rules? I wasn't trying to be antagonistic when I wrote it, my thinking was that pronouns are a sign of respect, and I don't respect Nyberg. Like helmed, I figured that was a neutral application and enforcing a rule against misgendering would be ceding the argument.
Probably, yeah. Nobody reported you, don't worry about it too much, we'd appreciate picking one of the other options next time :V
Ok, good to know.
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