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 -
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.
It isn't.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
*flouting
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
I think the rule is good. And that this discussion could have happened without the OP violating the rules.
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:
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?
We're saying "Don't start a thread here just to bitch about how you got banned on reddit."
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
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.
All reddit mods are terrible
some reddit mods are terrible
[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..."
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
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link