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 -
I've answerd the question as best I can. And no I'm not arguing for a content-based ban. What I'm arguing for is consideration of an account's history in the decision, and that contrary to rationalist norms where in assumptions of trust and good faith are the default, a lack of history should instead be interpreted as evidence of bad faith. Especially when that new account displays prior knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you before; theMotte is a fringe offshoot of a fringe offshoot, it's pretty damn rare that someone just wanders in here off the street. I'm saying that theMotte has enemies, that we've had users flat out admit that they were here to radicalize people, to farm lolcows for /r/drama, and to get us driven off reddit. and that it is foolish to forget/ignore this.
When a new user with no prior established history starts pressing the sort of buttons that draw outside scrutiny, your first thought should be that "this guy is up to something". To the degree that an internet persona has value at all it is in it's established history. A persona without an established history has no value and can be disposed of without thought. This dehumanization is price one pays for anonymity, because humanity and anonymity are mutually exclusive.
Remember that as a moderator your job is not that of a cop or a lawyer, you are not here to enforce rules. You are a janitor, you are a shit filter, you are here to clean up messes.
With that in mind, remember I have been in your shoes. When you complain about half your time spending half your time slapping down throwaway accounts and my reply is "half? try closer to 2/3rds. what exactly did you think I was doing during my tenure?"
Well, see, I don't actually consider myself a rationalist, and I don't assume trust and good faith from new posters.
And as I have told you before, we know this. Like JC man, I know you think we're quokkas but I wish you wouldn't keep assuming we're stupid.
Okay, and being off reddit, a major part of that concern is now obviated. I am not sure how much we should actually care about being being "farmed for drama" anymore, and as for the agenda posters, yes, they're here.
If we're being honest, given my druthers I probably would shoot from the hip more often (though not as often as you). You are right that the latest iteration of "Hello fellow kids what do you think of HBD, pretty spicy stuff huh? Also, what about those Jews?" could probably be summarily banned with nothing of value lost. I think the place where I agree more with Zorba and less with you is that as a community, the norms established by moderation are important, and being seen as impartial and giving everyone enough rope to hang themselves is more valuable than being perceived as capricious and banhappy where any mod can just ban anyone who raises our hackles.
Then you're in the minority and are truly my spiritual successor. ;-)
I'm not assuming that anyone is stupid, i am remembering old arguments and projecting the results forward. Arguments that I will concede that I lost, but I still don't think I was necessarily wrong. Shoot from the hip and let the cards fall where they may. The worst that can happen is not bad at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link