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 -
Today I got a response to an old comment in which I'd argued
@desolation objected, noting that leftist activism is fully willing to make people uncomfortable:
In the interest of further discussion, I'm moving my response to the main thread.
I'll stand by the first statement, and emphasize that it refers to hobby-spaces-leaning-left, not extremists. I'm not sure what led you to this month-old post, but it was in response to a theory that "Leftists (especially LGBT-focused) congregate in highly socialized communities where every small action toward The Cause is socially reinforced." The OP had constructed a rather elaborate model of left-affiliated communities which portrayed them as hugboxing evangelists. In addition to being rather uncharitable, this overlooks an alternate theory: if a space is reasonably nice, will it end up full of leftists?
As for the second, yes and no. Yes, quoting Kendi or otherwise engaging in that flavor of anti-*ism is more socially acceptable than just being *ist. That's exactly why it drives away fewer users. It's both harder to deploy (and thus more rare) and less likely to offend leftists, centrists, or even most right-wingers.
If a community bans slurs, they will exclude some free speech absolutists. So long as there are more of those on the right, that will select for leftists. Banning slurs is a much more popular mod policy than banning "you can't be racist against X," probably because slurs are cheap and easy to deploy anywhere. Case study: Xbox Live. Would banning any discussion of critical race theory have had any impact on the population of 13yo gamers? What about banning the word "retard"? Apply the same conclusion to Discord, and we have a mechanism by which a neutral community adopts some "left-wing" norms merely by picking the rules with the most relevance. Repeat over months or years, banning the few who get really upset about censorship, and we end up with a left-leaning community which gets along smoothly.
Maybe every once in a while someone in that community gets away with...I'm actually struggling to think of anti-racist slurs? "Colonizer?" Maybe someone says that and right-wingers feel unwanted, or doxxing threats make them feel unsafe. It's also possible that the community enters a purity spiral and implodes. But this is rare, because we're talking about boring hobby groups, not activists.
Honestly, I don't see where mainstream publications come into this at all. The comments section for NYT op-eds is by no means a tight-knit hobbyist community. And while the media's stance on doxxing ranges from sympathetic to enthusiastic, I'm skeptical that such outlets have endorsed using slurs.
I am not sure how big the contingent of "wants to use slurs" is. Certainly I do not encounter people in my right-leaning spaces wanting to use the n-word. I guess I can think of a few if I try really hard, but I mostly think of examples of them being told to control themselves. Even the f-slur gets exasperated sighs.
Or maybe you are being expansive in your use of slurs. You can get quite a bit of power by declaring other people's arguments off-limits and you can do that by calling them slurs. Twitter banned the "NPC" meme because it was dehumanizing, and reddit banned the word "groomer."
RPG.net is very good at making people uncomfortable, because say the wrong thing and you are dead, and "lol just do not say wrong things" is hard when today's wrong thing was a normal thing five years ago. Was ResetEra running "smoothly" on their old server?
Trust me, it's annoying for plenty of native speakers, too. I made a sacred vow that every time I see "the n-word" I raise my hands to the sky and scream nigger at the top of my lungs to balance the scales of the universe.
Your sacred vow does include waivers in case someone attempts to DDOS you? Hypothetically, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a non-native English speaker as well, though I might as well be due to immigrating at a very early age, and I second this and will go even stronger: it doesn't matter if there are impressionable children around, because they don't need to be protected from encountering the pain of seeing a specific set of characters in a specific order. Letters placed or syllables pronounced in some specific order are not magical spells, and it is bad for adults to behave as if they were in front of impressionable children.
The reason to avoid swearing around impressionable children isn't that they "need to be protected from encountering the pain of seeing a specific set of characters in a specific order", but that they are impressionable, liable to attempt to copy you and get the impression that things you do are a good idea to do in other contexts.
Edit: which is not to say that the entire Internet should be sanitized into child-friendliness.
Indeed, I have sat in that chair, I have had this conversation
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but impressions can go in many directions. Using terms like "n-word" or "f-slur" when "nigger" or "faggot" would be more appropriate can give impressionable children the false impression that these words (and possibly, slurs in the general sense) actually have magical properties that make uttering them cause harm or whatever.
This is beginning to sound like the makings of a good South Park episode.
More options
Context Copy link
They do in fact have magical properties, though. They aren't just words, they are taboo in the most primitive sense possible, and there is no reason to believe this will change in the forseeable future. You might adhere strongly to the "words are just words" ideology, but the norms that ideology built lasted a bare handful of decades, and now they are gone. "they're just words" is, perhaps, minimally true, but "they will mess your life up if you use them" is maximally true and in a very immediate, concrete way.
If it is the case that such words really do have magical properties, then using them in front of impressionable children will demonstrate the magic - i.e. someone will mess your life up for using them - and children would notice that and learn of those magical properties. If using them doesn't result in such messing up happening, then it would demonstrate that, No, those words don't have magical properties, and there are contexts when they can be used without people messing you up. Impressionable children wouldn't necessarily pick up on those contexts, but I posit that (1) information about taboos around slurs is so plentiful anyway that watching/reading some adult use them has minimal impact and (2) children get much more leeway in breaking such taboos due to their natural lack of experience and maturity and learning the right contexts when to use such terms through experience and experimentation is part of growing up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is, some -- too many -- do treat them that way, and have banished the use/mention distinction. It's like the Jehovah scene in Monty Python. So rather than risk crazy people trying to ruin your life, people avoid the words.
I prefer to take it further, and talk about either Voldemort or "the letter-after-m word". Well, actually I generally prefer not to talk about it at all, since there are too many rabid, crazy people out there. (yet here I am, oops)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is the traffic ranking for 4chan?
You reminded me of KF which I should have needed reminding of.
More options
Context Copy link
For every person on 4chan who uses slurs as a tactical normie-filter there's three people who just enjoy being shocking and hateful.
No, 4channers use slurs because a combination of 'intending to piss people off because it's funny' and 'actually disliking trans/gay/black people'. ("based?") The ratio between the two probably has changed over its history. But it isn't to keep out speech policers!
4chan only hates gay tranny nigs because 4chan is self-loathing.
More options
Context Copy link
Because I know a bunch of long-time 4channers personally?
Again, in that case the point of the gore is to piss off the outsiders, not to 'prevent them from censoring us'
probably, but most channers don't post gore most of the time, whereas they constantly use slurs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, you did said it was akin to rdrama's banners, which are consciously chosen. But even if we accept that 4chan slur-users are unwitting or subconscious implementers of an anti-normie immune system, their conscious actions are obviously those of people who enjoy using slurs, so they fall into the contingent originally described in the comment above.
I don't think this is really an important difference.
Couldn't American white southerners (circa 1850) say their culture is about enslaving black people? Abolitionists wouldn't go, "huh you're right I didn't notice that. We wouldn't want to culturally genocide you, so carry on!" they just say: your culture is not worth preserving. Maybe more realistically, abolitionists would say: You can keep your southern food and your southern hospitality, but you don't need to keep slaves.
To the extent that 4chan's culture is dependent on saying mean words, why would "it's a defense mechanism!" convince anyone? Also, what exactly is "that culture" and can it be separated from saying mean words?
If it can be separated, then this is what a lot of people are asking for
It it can't be separated, then 4chan has enemies
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think it has to be very big. That subset gets to be very loud.
It only takes one “KKKILL_ALL_*******” or fedposter to make a lot of people nope out. Not dealing with that, going to hang out somewhere with fewer witches, etc.
Meanwhile, Twitter and Reddit and the like end up cultivating that image of non-witchiness as they attempt to catch the fleeing users. That means alienating the free speech absolutists, but not the garden-variety authoritarians.
Yeah, but those people shouldn't do that. KKKILL_ALL_blahblah doesn't actually do anything, or affect anyone, it really is just text, and one can just laugh or ignore it. It genuinely doesn't matter!
And... it isn't about a generic, reasonable sense of how harmful something is, there's clearly a larger, disproportionate factor - reddit banned /r/waterniggas for the soft n-word, and /r/legoyoda for vaguely racist memes, but still has /r/opiates, /r/cocaine, /r/heroin, /r/meth, etc. And - this isn't even entirely left-coded, /r/ageplaypenpals got taken down despite being entirely fictional because p*do stuff is considered to be terrible while something like /r/rapekink, despite describing things like likely-fictional (although "All stories here must be actual events told by the person with the victim's perspective" is in the sidebar) "rape-bait".
I think the drugs vs rape/pedo stuff makes sense.
People on those drug forums at least teach each other harm reduction techniques and are usually positive and supportive for those who say they want to quit.
If you click on any of the subreddits, I'm not seeing any harm reduction.
Bear in mind - all of these should be unsuspended. But the a very similar argument, and honestly a more convincing one, goes for the roleplay-fetish subreddits ("it gives them an outlet for their fetish that doesn't harm anyone"). (weird fetish subreddits are also supportive of people who say they want to stop doing the fetish, they are extremely big on consent.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
I think "free speech absolutists" are noticeably different from "right-wing posters," even if they feel some common ground these days.
That’s where the evaporative cooling comes in. Trimming off the few most vocal is liable to shift the norms and to discourage others.
So long as the few most vocal are either principled libertarians or lost channers, moderation is going to have a pseudo-leftwards bias.
Here on Motte we’ve seen similar effects. Certain high-profile commenters get banned for being inflammatory, and then a few others announce dissatisfaction, followed by flouncing or suicide-by-mod. I want to say the reasoning is usually “Mod X is a partisan hack.” @HlynkaCG, I’m struggling to remember names, have you got anything?
Well Zontargs', flounce over the "True, Kind, Neccesary" rule that lead him and many of our other more "abrassive" regulars to leave and form /r/CultureWarRound up is probably the most notable instance. And I suspect that the memory of that event is what leads to a lot of the older libertarian types to characterize the Motte's moderation as left wing.
I'm not sure how far into the "inside baseball" of the mod team it's appropriate for me to delve, but we did have a few High profile flouncers that I was sorry to see and that lead to some heated discussions in mod chat. Yodacrist, IprayIam and McJunker, being the ones that stick in my mind.
We also had a few serial flouncers IE users who'd show up and post for about a month before stirring up a bunch of drama over some percieved slight, post a long winded rant about how they were leaving because the mods were strangling the discourse only to show up a couple weeks later with a new account and repeat the process.
Disagreements with Zorba and Trace over how to handle this later category was perhaps one of the issues that lead to my leaving the mod team.
More options
Context Copy link
Where inflammatory is best understood as "in violation of implicitly leftist values".
Implicitly leftist in the same way as tankies regard "having stuff" as an implicitly bourgeois value, maybe.
When you filter against abrasive personalities, you are filtering for leftists, who are on the whole higher in agreeableness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt that.
Anecdotally, for all the complaints about moderation targeting the right, the sort of "libertarians or lost channers" who make those sorts of complaints seem to have an even rougher time in explicitly conservative/right-wing spaces.
More options
Context Copy link
For this community, that’s a bit complicated, given the more classically-liberal principles involved.
This community descends from a cult of personality based around a neurotic progressive who disliked a bit of the left's excesses (as they threatened him personally and he's highly neurotic), but outside of those personal threats was enthusiastically on board with the entire far-left culture.
So much so he deliberately invested the whole of his private and personal life into those far-left environments!
Of course the values this community enshrines are implicitly leftist. They're less left than they could maximally be, but nevertheless still enshrine leftist ideas.
How would this community look and even work if it adopted different values? Are you implying there is a workable and desirable alternative, and one that has no taint of leftism? Or are you merely issuing a complaint with no further implications?
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps you ought to clarify what you mean by "leftist" and "rightist" then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are saying that the reason ResetEra or RPGNet became totally insane is that evaporative cooling drove away everyone not-insane, I agree.
But I do not think you are saying that. I think you are saying "right-wing people really really want to say nigger and then when people get banned for saying that the whole left-wing march starts."
Any place useful, regardless of polarity, needs to keep out
fed posters
glowies
fucking idiots who are genuinely "on our side"
and barrels of ink will be spilled saying, in way more words, "our side has no bad people, they are all plants from the other side, and, man, speaking of the other side, let me tell you about them, did you see their claim that the only people posting hate on their forums are outside wreckers?"
Anyway. All that ink is irrelevant because as far as the place is concerned all three of those groups are identical and the antibodies to keep out one keeps out the others.
What’s a “glowie”?
An FBI plant.
They may or may not exist, but getting rid of people who might-just-as-well-be-glowies is an important skill for any group.
So as far as I can tell, fedposters are plants who plant incriminating "evidence" in fora, while glowies are plants that try to coax the same from the real posters? Is there a strict distinction between the two?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glowie-glowposting
My favourite
I do like that Mokou glowposting reaction picture.
On a completely unrelated note I wonder if anyone feels the same way I do about the Chinese net in that it‘s very heavy on the sarcasm and quite aggressive in tone; it is quite a bit different from older Chinese. (Though I suppose it is the same for any language that makes its way to the internet…)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I don’t know if those two forums were hit by evaporative cooling or by hostile admin takeover. Couldn’t say. I’ve been thinking about smaller, hobbyist servers. The sort that start out with a “no politics” rule.
There is some subset of users which wants to use slurs. Maybe they’re edgy teenagers, maybe principled free-speech crusaders. They are more likely to lean right.
As long as banning members of that subset disproportionately hits the right, the window gets to slide left, even if the subset is really small. No ideology needed—though it certainly shortcuts the process.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, now do "punch the Nazis" in a social context where it's clear that Republicans are basically Nazis. Or when the discussion is whether "punch the Nazis" is even an adequate response, since killing the vermin is obviously morally superior.
I think this is a product of the fundamental difference in how the trad right and mainstream republicans view political violence in contrast to how democrats and the bulk of the so-called dissident right/intellectual dark web view it. IE Violence as a switch, vs violence as a continuum.
If you're the sort of person who views violence as a switch, "punching the Nazis" is eminently stupid and frankly cowardly. We don't don't "punch" Nazis where I'm from, we shoot 'em. We murder the bastards and then use their still-warm guts to grease the treads of our tanks the way the lord and George S Patton intended.
If you're the sort of person who views violence as a continuum the above is absurd, and sectarian violence just part of a balanced and complete breakfast.
The switch is welded in the off position, or if not, it's close enough. Which means the people who view violence as a continuum uses threats, intimidation, and lesser violence to simply win while the other side is waiting for a red line to be crossed to throw the switch. It never will be, until the "violence as a switch" side has been whittled down to five guys in a broken pickup truck with a single-shot BB gun.
More options
Context Copy link
You can't tell me you haven't realized "punch a Nazi" is not literally about punching Nazis. That's just the catchy slogan. The essence of the message is "kill disliked right-wingers".
The continuum theory of violence is cute, but false. The lack of overt calls to murder are merely for plausible deniability. Everyone who unironically posts punch a Nazi is also cool with the Nazi getting righteous comeuppance from a brick to the skull.
Most people are perfectly comfortable with the thought of their political enemies being murdered. What people are not comfortable with is being seen for what they are.
More options
Context Copy link
I can understand some of your beef with contrarians / the dissident right / the IDW, but... I beg your pardon, what now? Did I miss some Jordan Peterson video where he encourages people to get into fistfights with the woke? Is there some hidden Evergreen College footage, where Brett Weinstein is slapping students around? What on Earth are you talking about?
More options
Context Copy link
In the specific conversation I was witnessing (left to far left), the "punch vs. kill Nazis" wasn't so much dial vs. switch as it was taking the "punch a Nazi" meme and upgrading it 50-Stalins style.
I think one of the other aspects of dial-style is that it claims to tolerate sliding through multiple dimensions "better." I'm sure you're familiar with the hot vs. crazy graph? Imagine the same concept, but where one aspect is "level of violence" and the other is "badness of target." You can afford to be looser in your application of "Nazi" if all you're doing is, you know, just a punch.
It's the whole "your speech is violence, but my violence is speech" thing. Who, whom all the way down. I honestly don't know how you even have a conversation when the idea of neutral standards, applied regardless of actor, is one of the things under contention.
You realize all talks are for recreational purposes, not means of resolving conflicts or furthering peace between tribes, and otherwise embrace conflict theory.
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
Am I the only one who remembers when it was trending on Twitter, to seemingly no problem what so ever, to cheer all the old white men dying after the last census? To signal, crassly, how truly enthusiastic you were, and how much better you thought the world was, with more dead white people?
Left leaning spaces, if you take for granted that Twitter and Reddit are left leaning, absolutely support "KILL ALL ******" posts, so long as you are talking about Republicans, or suspected Republicans. If you don't nope out of that just as hard as when you see someone "just asking questions" about the "Jewish Question", it's because you take it totally for granted.
I think that you make a good point and that it is under appreciated by the average Mottizen.
In my experience the sort of reflexive contrarian that complains about "left wing censorship" getting them banned from reddit for using [insert racial slur] is just as likely to get banded from ARfcom or the old Limbaugh Forums for the exact same reason.
More options
Context Copy link
Just look at HermanCainAwards. Leftist space celebrating the deaths of conservatives and it hasn't even been quarantined as far as I can tell. Or all the death wishes and threats of violence on Politics, a default sub.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that’s fucked up.
I suppose I can’t prove it, but I don’t use Twitter, and my reddit account just posts on /r/rational these days.
#KillAllMen started nearly a decade ago and had quite some staying power too, didn't it? I still see it once in a (long) while.
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