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 agree. "1 day ban" seemed fair for CPAR, vs overly charitable for TI. But:
"When the people like you were diluted by those who were well-meaning", "But whatever", and "Bravo" were not pushes for polite conversation. They were impolite conversation, written as if they were supposed to be subtle enough to superficially toe the line of debate rules, but clearly just jumping into the mud pit to wrestle there too. "Forget about the black person who got taxpayer money for a moment" was an egregious sideswipe, rephrasing a complaint in the least charitable possible way. I've probably posted worse attacks than all these before, and I'm certain I've restrained myself from making worse attacks before, and even when I'm provoked it's usually a conscious decision. I don't think CPAR is someone who would make a mistake like that by accident.
And, though I hate to apply an unfair double-standard, lest it be interpreted as an unfair imbalance in confrontation rather than in concern, I think that's what bothers me most about the whole exchange. Speaking to @Chrisprattalpharaptr:
No, but it's both clear and horrifying that you changed as well as the space! I admit there are usernames here that just make my eyes glaze over and my scroll wheel accelerate, but when I see a @Chrisprattalpharaptr post, it's supposed to be time to stop skimming! You've built up some expectations! I'm not saying we have to make every comment a winner here, but the drop even from "sort-by-controversial" quality to yesterday was great enough that I keep trying to reinterpret it as some kind of "mirroring" performance art that I'm just failing to get. Even granting that the original post was no better: you don't write replies for the other debater, you write them for the audience. Perhaps FCfromSSC here doesn't completely persuade all his interlocutors, but he's probably still doing a good thing for both their and his own mental clarity and mental health, as well as writing something lurkers can see and pick up and benefit from. The contrary "neither cast ye your pearls before swine" philosophy was a lousy one when I used to see it coming from the right, and it's no better these days when I see it (without the reference, this time...) adopted by the left.
I'm torn about what to advise ("advise" sounds too pretentious ... "beg for"?) here. On the one hand TheMotte has gotten a bit worse, and although it's also recovered from bad phases in the past, I'm always worried that maybe this time will be the final "evaporative cooling", where level heads get burnt out enough to leave and hysteresis makes problems permanent, unless enough level heads have the fortitude to stick it out despite the unwarranted negative feedback of doing so. I'd love to stop this paragraph here. But if I'm asking too much, if the feedback is so bad that "level" requires too much effort ... take a break before you break, and wait for a week or two until you're less easily trolled before returning? It's okay that individual people have cycles of good and bad phases too. As a wise man once said, and I repeat with no irony or sarcasm:
More options
Context Copy link