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 -
When avoiding a derogatory term makes discussion more difficult you will have a leg to stand on. “Tranny” doesn’t, yet you insist on sheltering under free speech.
So I ask: how is this specific usage of Free Speech (allowing people to say “tranny”) helping us achieve our terminal value?
Yes, it takes judgement to decide what speech to allow. But here’s a simple heuristic:
If a word drives some people away and is unnecessary for communicating ideas, then modding its usage helps one aspect of the foundation and doesn’t hurt the other.
“Tranny” drives away certain perspectives and makes no ideas easier to communicate. So how is allowing it helping achieve the foundation?
It is a regrettable aspect of modernity that people can and will take umbrage to just about any word, and we had to come up with the Euphemism Treadmill to describe the process occurring so rapidly that people with good intentions who aren't precisely up to date with what's in vogue, are left bemused when attacked for using what they remember as a benign term. "Wait, I thought they wanted us to call them Negroes?" A bemused old lady says as she's heckled outside a grocery story. "But what do you mean, Colored People is bad? Isn't that the same thing as People of Color??" A confused activist says as he's actively being canceled.
It is not a myth that some people object to the use of the word "mother" instead of "birthing person", or the word "retard" instead of "mentally handicapped" (and wouldn't you know it, some people even find the latter or merely "disabled" bad), even if you call someone with clinically diagnosed mental retardation a retard instead of trying to imply your opponents are so.
My rebuttal is that such a level of word and tone-policing also drives away people who prefer free speech, or at least those who are dismayed by the Treadmill sweeping them off their feet. It is not a costless tradeoff as you imply.
Tranny might well be offensive to the majority of forum users (I don't think so, but it certainly is to a large fraction). It is, however, a word that can be applied precisely to the same set of people who can be more politely called trans or transfolk. I resent every linguistic imposition placed on me, regardless of whether I want to use the term, and as you can see, there are plenty of people who wish to use it. Trans people are also, despite their overrepresentation in online discourse, a very small minority in absolute terms.
But I am not interested in litigating every word anyone can potentially object to, because there are thousands of them. The matter has been internally discussed within the mod team, and so far, the closest we have to a consensus is:
This is not an official rule because it isn't an official rule. If explicit moderation guidelines emerge that rule out anything that a relatively well-defined set of the mods or users consider a slur, no matter the rest of the comment, I will enforce it in my remit as a mod. Until then, you are welcome to advocate for your stance, to the extent that I have some leeway to interpret the Foundation, I happen to disagree and will personally not moderate on that basis alone until the mod consensus says I should. Or we have a formal rule to that effect.
*formulated by the ever-eloquent @FCfromSSC, and personally endorsed by at least me and @raggedyanthem, but as I stress, not a binding declaration or even outright consensus.
It's not costless, but is absolutely a requirement for hosting a space with diverse viewpoints that people treat each other politely. It's a contradiction to want a place with diverse viewpoints, but also a place that wants to accommodate Englishmen who just can't help themselves when they see an Irishman.
Why yes, what counts as a weapon isn't a well-defined problem. I'm sure even Stephen Hawking could assault you, by the legal definition, if only by hawking a lob of phlegm in your general direction.
Consider me the equivalent of a Second Amendment advocate who is OK with concealed carry of pistols on public grounds, but not the private ownership of nuclear weapons.
No matter what you say or do, a non-zero number of people will consider it hostile. Inaction is no shield, wasn't "silence is violence" a popular shibboleth for a bit?
This is still a matter of active debate within the mods, so I am ready to reverse my stance and swallow my minor discontent if necessary. But everything we do is subjective, unavoidably so, and I'm trying to find a way of moderating things that isn't actively contradictory or against the way it was done before.
More options
Context Copy link
What's your assessment of the word "Homophobe"?
Bad word. "Doesn't like gay people" communicates the exact same thing but with less heat.
Why not "homosexual-critical", or some other more neutral construction? Do you think most "homophobes" don't like gay people as people, as opposed to objecting to some action or aspect common within the gay community?
Should we ban the use of "homophobe" here? After all, you claim that banning such words is "absolutely a requirement for hosting a space with diverse viewpoints that treat each other politely".
It’s doesn’t matter what I think. “The group of people who don’t like gay people” is a valid set of people to talk about. Referencing that group is allowed, and people are welcome to argue how large it is.
Referencing that group in a deliberately inflammatory way should not be allowed.
I’m sure there are awkward edge cases you can catch me up with, but the existence of edge cases doesn’t justify ignoring the non-edge cases.
“Tranny” exists as an inflammatory way to say “transgender person”. It is not an edge case and not defensible.
The people who use it are using it to demonstrate their disdain for transpeople which is not “writing like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion”.
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