site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   28322 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ordinarily I wouldn't post personal Reddit drama here, but the thread is slow and I'm mad.

Here is a post that I saw on /r/baseball:

Anthony Bass promoting anti-LGBTQ propaganda on his Instagram

You probably noticed that the thread is locked with a moderator message: "The trolls are flooding in, and the conversation has run its course at this point. Friendly reminder to love your neighbor, and that it's not intolerant to oppose bigotry. Everyone have a nice holiday Monday!"

This message was posted only a few minutes after I was permanantly banned from /r/baseball for comments in that very thread! In fact, I believe they are referring to me as one of the "trolls flooding in". Lets take a look under the hood to see what counts as perma-ban and threadlock-worthy comments.

First, the actual article in question. Anthony Bass is a pitcher for the Toronto Blue Jays. He posted an Instagram story saying Christians should boycott Target and Bud Light. That's it. That's the "anti-LGBTQ propaganda". I posted a top-level comment in the thread sarcastically making this point.

“”””Propaganda””””. Dude just told people not to but Bud Light or shop at Target. This place has lost the plot.

Is this a high-effort comment? No, but if you are familiar with the sports subs at all then you know that this type of low-effort sarcasm is all over the place. That's the posting culture there. I also got involved in another comment thread.

JaysRaineman73 -18 points 2 hours ago: "Who the fuck cares. So tired of this shit. I only care about how he plays on the field. If he’s not abusing or hurting anyone, it’s irrelevant."

realparkingbrake 11 points 2 hours ago: "On what planet does denying people the same rights as everyone else not qualify as abusing or hurting them?"

QuantumFreakonomics -4 points 2 hours ago: "What rights do they not have? Name them? How is he hurting anyone? How does asking people to not purchase products from a specific mega-corp hurt anyone? Am I hurting people every time I go to Walmart and not Target? Please, I’m begging you. Actually think about the things you are saying. Don’t just parrot the same irrelevant lines you’ve seen other people use."

PuppyPunter21 4 points an hour ago: "Well, if any players live in Florida, they have recently passed quite a few laws targeted against them. The continued promotion of these types of boycotts encites more hate. Covid caused more hate towards Asians, Kayne West promoted more antisemitism. Ignoring it isn't a solution."

QuantumFreakonomics 3 points an hour ago: " 'Well, if any players live in Florida, they have recently passed quite a few laws targeted against them.' What rights did these laws take away? The right to have teachers come out in front of their students? I had never heard of that "right" before a few years ago. 'The continued promotion of these types of boycotts encites more hate. Covid caused more hate towards Asians' Is your position that someone shouldn't be allowed to talk about an issue if it could possibly cause someone else to hate another group? I don't see how that is a workable position at all. Should we not have instituted Covid restrictions or even complained about covid in order to prevent Asian hate? 'Ignoring it isn't a solution.' Why not? People speaking their mind on public issues is the bedrock of Democracy. Some of those people are going to say things you don't like. A democracy where certain issues are not free to be discussed is not much of a democracy at all.

This was the extent of my participation in the thread. I did not expect my comments to be particularly well-received by the Reddit population, but I felt that I pointed out enough legitimate issues that I would be safe from accusations of trolling. I was wrong.

Here is the modmail message I received informing me of my permanent ban, along with the brief conversation we had before they muted me with their absolute power.1 For reference, here are the /r/baseball rules. Would an honest reading of these rules give you any reason at all to think that anything I posted would not be allowed, much less permaban worthy? You would have to be steeped in internet leftist culture to understand that, "Trolling, threatening, harassing, or inciting violence towards individuals or groups will not be tolerated. Racist, sexist, or otherwise intolerant language in both comments and submissions will be removed." means that pointed questions against the progressive consensus will get you tossed out.

I understand why so many subreddits are complete circlejerks now. It's not about echo-chambers and voting dynamics. They literally just banned everyone who disagreed.

1. Here is the source they cited for their "62%" figure. I'll let you decide for yourself whether this poll is applicable

Talking about some baseball player's Instagram post, reactions to it, and the Bud Light boycott is a valid Culture War topic, but this post is exactly why we say to leave the rest of the Internet at the door. You are literally just coming here to complain about being banned on reddit, with complete repostings of your entire personal thread just so you can bring your drama to what you presume will be more sympathetic ears.

Don't do this. Two-day ban to deny you the satisfaction of participating in this thread, because this is such an obvious and deliberate flaunting of the spirit and letter of the rules.

I strongly disagree with this characterization of OP's post. The rule states in relevant part that, "we ask that you refrain from posting bare links to culture-war-related discussions held outside of this sub. If you are going to link to another platform we ask that you please put in the work to contextualize the post and explain why it is relevant to readers of this community."

This is not a "bare link" to a culture war discussion from an outside website. The OP provided plenty of context, and it's obvious why this is relevant to the culture war--it's an example of progressive/woke discussion norms and of what is considered "out of bounds" in woke spaces.

The fact that OP is directly involved in this culture war drama should be irrelevant. If this interaction had happened on a college campus between students, with some of the students trying to "cancel" another student for saying what OP said, and someone had given this description of the events along with light commentary describing their thoughts on the matter, no one would have batted an eye. This is classic Culture War Thread content and OP shouldn't be punished for posting it.

The OP came here to bitch about being banned on reddit, complete with repostings of their arguments with the mods.

That's not what this place is for and you will absolutely be discouraged from doing that.

The fact that OP is directly involved in this culture war drama should be irrelevant.

It isn't.

If this interaction had happened on a college campus between students, with some of the students trying to "cancel" another student for saying what OP said, and someone had given this description of the events along with light commentary describing their thoughts on the matter

Then it would be a substantially different situation from this.

He has a good point. The rule's title is "leave the rest of the Internet at the door", but the rule's text doesn't actually say not to post about anything involving yourself and the rest of the Internet. It's an inaccurate title that doesn't really describe what the rule refers to. The rule itself only says that you shouldn't be posting bare links to such discussions without context that explains why it is relevant, not that you shouldn't be posting such things at all.

The OP clearly didn't post a bare link without context.

flaunting

*flouting

I agree with the other comments.

It's an interesting thread and a straight up ban on first offense with that hostile wording seems very excessive.

deleted

I think the rule is good. And that this discussion could have happened without the OP violating the rules.

I also think there needs to be some place on the internet for people to discuss their feelings about the echo chambers elsewhere, and I'm not sure there is a better place at this point than here.

You can do this here. What you can't do is bring up a bunch of specific subreddits, specific people, and specific details of the situation. Leave the specifics out and talk in generalities.

The rule does not forbid bringing up specific communities, people, or details. It just says:

If you are going to link to another platform we ask that you please put in the work to contextualize the post and explain why it is relevant to readers of this community.

So you can be specific, you just have to contextualize.

If you want an easy way to avoid drama leave out the details.

No amount of details or contextualizing will save a post if it's bring drama down upon us.

Personal vendettas are unlikely to pass muster.

So this post brought drama down upon us? From /r/baseball?

Yes, only one person (the original poster) but that's enough.

There is a different spinoff site for this sort of thing.

What? Are you saying that the op itself is the drama which the op brought down upon us? What does "drama" mean?

More comments

I really thought we had another rule to use specific groups instead of general. I suppose the closest is the CW prompt's "[Avoid] making sweeping generalizations" or perhaps "be as precise and charitable as you can." Yeah, those are in theory compatible with generalities.

It still rubs me the wrong way.

  1. All reddit mods are terrible

  2. some reddit mods are terrible

  3. [these specific] reddit mods are terrible.

The rule you pointed out covers 1, the op did 3 which isn't allowed cuz no drama. 2 is allowable and what the op could have said.

How could you argue 2 without 3?

"I had an experience in an unnamed subreddit..."

I can see how technically his post violates the rule, but "Two-day ban to deny you the satisfaction of participating in this thread" seems rather savage to me given that I am not convinced he broke the rule deliberately.

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