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 -
In guess' defence, they are literally always on defence when arguing here. That's going to taint their interpretation of even innocuous statements, and it's been going on for years at this point. Plus there's the fact that they are basically alone - if smh had written that post about folamh's op can you imagine the outcry? It wouldn't be fair to write it about folamh's op, and we users would be falling over each other to defend him - but nobody is coming to guess' defence. Except me I suppose, but I'm not defending their post, I agree with smh's description. And I felt it necessary to clarify that for my cred or something, so even their defence has caveats (smh's post is like a caveated defence too). No wonder they don't feel like being nice about it.
Also maybe this is unfair, but this kind of reads like "you would look prettier if you smiled". In both the second wave and the third wave sense. Like, guess comes here to talk about the culture war, gets body checked by everyone and their dog and now they have to smile about it too? (second wave) But also you have framed it like it's guess' problem, but if you won't argue with them when their argument style isn't breaking any rules then they win the argument by default. (third wave).
Obviously part of the inspiration for my response here is rampant contrarianism, but I really do think this thread is a bit unfair to guess. I won't try and relitigate the issue I have with the assymetry of using mod information in arguments that don't need it, but I think there is also assymetry in the way some things read depending on whether you think your interlocutor is hostile or not, so while if smh had posted that about me it would appear to me as acerbic but good natured ribbing, I think it would look like an attack if I were in guess' shoes. Similarly if you told me that you thought I was being a dick about everything and so you didn't want to argue with me, I would try to be nicer because you are my ingroup, whereas because we are guess' neargroup that will probably only serve to annoy them further.
And while I would never suggest that that means smh or you shouldn't post like that (as a separate argument from the power differential argument) I do think guess deserves some leeway in how they respond to it. And I know you guys do give guess leeway, and this was meant to be more of a "come on dude, dial it back a bit", but from a defensive position it feels like a bit of a dogpile. It's rashomon.
Edit: clarity
Darwin is not a new poster on the Motte, and people have repeatedly pointed out his consistently bad behavior and bad-faith posting in the past.
Actions have consequences.
I know, I've bitched about them too. I think raggedy responded beautifully, because it doesn't really matter how guess behaves, what matters is how we react, and I think it's better to recognise potential pitfalls before they occur and talk about them cordially rather than waiting for shit to fall apart and picking up the pieces.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link