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'm saying it's unintentional because it's unintentional.
"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.
Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.
You provide no evidence or information that demonstrates how or why it should be considered 'unintentional'. You could say the same thing about any result you don't like. So it's just you saying it. I mean, 'conservative' results are 'unintentionally' there. So they get removed. No problem.
'Conservatives' want to see those viewpoints. They are a minority. Most people are not wingnuts.
Google is not aimed at 'conservatives' either, obviously.
Again, what is your problem here, exactly? You are OK with banning things you don't like. That's the line you draw. Even if it's just words that don't convey any immediate or credible threat to anyone. Other people do the exact same thing. Are you just mad they are doing it to you? Doesn't that invoke any sort of introspection into just what you were doing to others? Can you not recognize some sort of need for a mechanism that deals with this issue that serves a broader scope than just your feelings and whim?
That, at least, was my original impression of 'centrists' or classical liberals. I imagined they were looking for a principled system that could 'make it all work'. But as you've shown, and like many other ones I've engaged with have shown, they have no principles that reach beyond their own nose. They have no conception of a principled system that might leave them in the vulnerable position of having to tolerate things they don't like. They just believe themselves to be so rational and correct about everything that they can't even imagine that their own emotions could lead them astray. In fact, they predefine themselves as morally correct and then use their own emotions as a compass. Operating under the impression that they've ascended beyond personal bias and whatever else. The extent of the worldview is 'my reasons are good, other peoples reasons are bad'. And then we play this ridiculous game of words we've been playing in this comment chain.
There's a minority, being less than 50%, and there's a minority, being less than 1%. Conservatives are the first kind; Holocaust deniers the second, outside of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which I have no qualms about saying Google should ignore.
Google is not banning Holocaust denial. Not showing it unless people ask for it isn't banning.
What's the alternative to using reasons, even if you think your own are good and someone else's are bad--just don't use reasons?
And progressives have no qualms about saying wingnuts should be ignored. You're back at square one. Why should they care how many people believe in false things? Let the record stand corrected.
And google is not banning wingnuttery. I mean, there are massive problems with denying people fair access to an algorithm. But hey, you can ignore those for deniers, why shouldn't progressives do the same for their outgroup? Just quash whatever it is you don't like before it gets the chance of gaining popularity.
I'm not looking for an alternative to reason. I'm looking for some self awareness and a broader contextualization of things so you can recognize the point of contention.
Because Google is there to provide what people search for, and people aren't searching for false results.
Because a substantial number of people want to find the things said by their outgroup, but no substantial number of people wants to find Holocaust denial (outside Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Then there's no problem with Google banning wingnut stuff.
Is it classified as 'substantial' when the amount of people clicking the holocaust denial link drive it to the top of Google search results? Are entire nations not 'substantial'? I mean, I agree in a sense. If we exclude everyone who might want to click the link, no one wants to click it.
Just because they click it doesn't mean they want it. It's like clicking on a scam, except that unlike a scam, which is false and trying to take your money, this one's just false. People don't want false pages.
You have no idea whether people wanted to click the link or not. When people click 'Top 10 Reasons Why the Holocaust Didn't Happen' I'd wager they know where they are going. It's a funny headline if nothing else.
Then you have no problem with Google removing wingnuttery.
Wingnuttery is not 99% recognized as false, Holocaust denial is, unless you're in Iran.
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