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 -
The maternal instinct for the children is mixed with adoration for murderous, rapey barbarians. Personally, I suspect the second to be stronger than the first, but the first to be more what they talk about. Women love a killer, but which killer they love is a function of their social class and politics.
In the '70's, rich white girls used to form terrorist cells, break black felons out of prison, serve as a harem and follow him into battle against the evil white people, by which they meant assassinating black people.
Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat. Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible.
This post is actually a pretty clean example of exactly what we don't want people posting, here. I am familiar with the evidence I would expect you to provide in support of each of your claims, but you didn't actually do so. And even if you had, your rhetoric simply comes in too sweeping and too hot. The tone is all wrong; you're not discussing a culture war topic, you're waging culture war.
You've stacked some AAQCs which have somewhat shielded you, but the number of warnings for low effort booing on your account is getting cumbersome. This time it's a three day ban.
“I am familiar with the evidence”
As am I and a fully fleshed out argument would probably start with the raping of the Sabine then cite historical examples elsewhere (Tribes in Brazilian rain forest, probably Aztecs), cite serial killers getting young hot wives in prison, a little 50 Shades of Grey plus polling on women sexual fantasies and porn watching habits.
Is the goal to write comments that a thorough blue triber who mostly hangs out in places like neoliberal Reddit stumbles into this place and gets the full arguments (leader to long comments) or that 80-90% of the people know the references for the frame a person is citing?
Long form and relitigating every frame hinders the ability to develop models to apply to new situations. My support for your position in this specific comment would basically come down to I haven’t seen anyone argue about female attraction to violence lately. The only incident lately I believe Ymeskhout linked to a Scott Alexander post talking about a client who constantly goes to jail for beating his wives and constantly has a new wife or the wife he previously went to jail for beating is sleeping with him again.
Inflammatory comments and shorthand integration-by-reference hinder the ability to create 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.
That's the goal--it's right there at the top of the page! Of course, the community is what it is; personalities and culture and such are bound to develop and play a part. The goal of moderation is to do what we can to preserve the foundation in the face of that.
Absolutely! Ban everyone (other than the Nazi-hobbyists with the time on their hands to couch their points in interminable gish-gallops) and you will not have anymore inflammatory comments to deal with! (tappinghead.gif)
Keep up the good work guys.
Do you think @JTarrou should not have been banned?
If you think the modding was correct, then what is your complaint?
If you think the modding was incorrect, then explain why.
I think that @JTarrou's comment made a valid well articulated point relevant to the discussion -- my point to you is that if you continue nannying people's speech patterns you will soon enough be moderating a forum mainly consisting of polite and long-winded Nazis, because (for whatever reason) they seem to be the only ones currently willing to put in the effort to self-police their speech to the extent that they aren't catching regular bans.
If this is what you and @naraburns feel 'the foundation' of the place is (and Zorba presumably agrees) then so be it -- but it seems to me that things have drifted very far from what it was, and I think it has accelerated lately in large part due to an increase in the specific form of moderation that you are engaging in at the moment.
I don't think our moderation has changed, I know our rules haven't, and clearly it is not just Nazis who are able to write effortful posts without catching bans.
We've been hearing "You guys are ruining this place with your nannying speech patterns" since before we left reddit.
Not from me you haven't -- the frequency of it has markedly increased lately, whether due to the additional manpower on the mod squad or a shift in tolerance IDK, but the place is changing under our feet and not for the better.
Anyways look at the results and ask yourself the question about your rules bringing you to this -- what good did this ban do the forum?
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