site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   26185 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Edit: If you give me the username I would be happy to find it for you, I have good luck with that sort of thing most of the time.

  • -17

Still waiting.

Cool it.

You don't get to act offended because someone didn't bend over backwards for you.

You can find most reddit posts by searching for the username in google tagged with reddit. I've never had an issue doing that to find someone's posts, hardly bending over backwards. I'm just asking for a bit of proof for Arjin's "just so", booo outgroup story. I think that is in line with this site's guidelines.

You're right though, I did not go about it in a good way, I have edited my comment into an offer for help.

The only thing I remembered about the post was a long-deleted conversation about it on another sub. I was sure I could find it through a few keywords, a username, and the sub's name, and trace the conversation back to the comment that had the link, which is exactly what I did, once I had the right tool for it. It would be fun to watch you attempt that with Google.

Ok give me the data you had to work with and I will walk you through how I did it with google.

Also, are all my posts being manually approved or something? There seems to be a huge delay in posting here.

It's not exactly it (not giving away my old hangouts, sorry), but it's analogous to remembering seeing the link in a comment on /r/JordanPeterson ,where /u/Yesofcoursenaturally used the phrase "the personal is political" (with the link not being in the comment itself, but in the same thread). While this is an analogy, the example is real. You can find a link to the post in question, with the data I just gave, using the proper tools.

Yes, they are. Sorry; it’s not any fault of yours!

I found the user in one second once I had his name, it was literally just his name and reddit into the google search box.

The post was also just the mods trying to get the sub they wanted. Isn't that what any mod wants? Hardly a CIA plot.

I found the user in one second once I had his name,

No you haven't. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than "the only thing I remembered about the post was a long-deleted conversation about it on another sub", but I'm not talking about the user that wrote the post, I'm talking about a few users talking about the post in on a completely different subreddit, who have since deleted a lot of their comments. If I knew the author of the post, I would have been able to find it immediately, and would have linked it in my original comment.

The post was also just the mods trying to get the sub they wanted. Isn't that what any mod wants? Hardly a CIA plot.

Like I said: "There was a reddit post on some sub for moderators that outlines how to increase censorship of wrongthink, while minimizing the chances of a user revolt resulting in them starting and migrating to an alternative sub".

Originally you were asking for a way to find it and saying you just needed a way to search for the username you remembered. You could apply this to the username that you did remember and trace from there as you said you did. Why are they different?

Originally you were asking for a way to find it and saying you just needed a way to search for the username you remembered

I said posts by username, and the only mistake was conflating posts with comments, it's a distinction that makes all the difference when relying on Google, but one that I think is understandable when you're doing to whole "weekly catch-all thread" thing for a long time.

You could apply this to the username that you did remember and trace from there as you said you did. Why are they different?

Google is not very good at indexing comments, and the comment in question has since been deleted, so even if by any chance it would have been indexed by Google originally, and archived by archive.org so that it's still accessible, Google's cache would be long expired and the comment would be impossible to find this way.

You didn’t ask. Someone else asked, and you jumped on board to claim that Arjin was lying. Fine. Equal lack of evidence.

Meanwhile, he was polite enough to respond with an excuse. In fact, he did find the source. I think he has a much better claim to acting in good faith.

Well with the name now available I was able to find it by typing IAmAN00bie and reddit into google in like 1 second. So I stand by my kind of snarky reaction to his claim of not being able to dig it up. It looks like a long post so I can't speak to his interpretation of it yet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+IAmAN00bie+reddit&sca_esv=58652087346d5a22&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Z2pVLS9JK3_mBJ016XzgZVALHng%3A1710941717844&source=hp&ei=Feb6ZYe_MbenptQPm6iYmAQ&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZfr0Jf7rhVgnStHHCqXGe8dotuyYNmw6&ved=0ahUKEwjHncnK-oKFAxW3k4kEHRsUBkMQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=+IAmAN00bie+reddit&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhIgSUFtQU4wMGJpZSByZWRkaXQyBRAhGKABSMQRUABYrRBwAHgAkAEAmAHVAaABhwaqAQU0LjIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCB6ACpQbCAggQABiABBiiBJgDAJIHBTMuMy4xoAelCg&sclient=gws-wiz

So after reading it, it wasn't so much pushing an agenda as it was attempting to get the subreddit that the mods desired. Isn't that the goal of any mod? Isn't that your goal?

They wanted to discourage problem users while minimizing drama and pushback, he was right about them trying a particular strat to not lose regular users, smart stuff, why wouldn't a mod do that? Hardly a CIA plot.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you gave me a working search tool, where I can look up old posts by username.

Does this work? https://search.pullpush.io/

Yes! Here's the post in question. @comicsansstein, @grognard.

So basically, their approach was "soft-fail?" They didn't want to shut down the sub, because then everyone would just move to a new sub that they don't control. And they couldn't just ban individual users, because there were too many users, and if they banned too many they'd also start a new sub. So the trick was to gradually make the sub worse by indirectly banning the content they didn't like under some other, seemingly innocuous rule "must have two or more people" until the regular users got bored of it.

It works for me.

Thank you, citizen. You've done a great service today.

Edit: I am happy to find it for you if you give me the username. Sorry for being rude before.

  • -14

If you don't copy and archive everything some of the things you remember reading will succumb to link rot.

If you do copy and archive everything, some people will pull a Regina George and ask why are you so obsessed about the subject, indicating that you caring too much should mean that they should win by fiat. Most normies are close to this, therefore I often can't bring myself to bother with the cataloguing.

You can literally find anyone's posts on reddit just by typing in their username and the word "reddit" into google search. I don't know what is happening with Arjin. I am happy to find it for him if he gives me the user name. I was being rude before, but that is because I think it is a simple ask and a simple task to back up a pretty serious claim.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats