This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Quality Contributions to the Main Motte
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of September 30, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of October 7, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
[null]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Squeaking in on the last day with a post that I would personally not categorize as "quality" is kind of interesting. We talked about this before, that certain sorts of highly partisan speech get lots of upvoting and AAQC reports, and I think it's probably not very healthy for the ecosystem. This isn't to say that I think my post is bad or that I don't stand by the position, but I really don't think it's particularly insightful.
That can't be fixed. There is literally no way mechanically to prevent people from treating the AAQC report as a super-upvote. You would have to address it at a cultural level, but that would also be impossible without removing a big chunk of the people who come here in the first place.
That's a drop in the water though. This place hasn't been healthy for a long time, and arguably wasn't even at its conception. Then again, one community's illness is another community's peak condition, so maybe I'm wrong and this place is good precisely for why I think it's ill.
It's an interesting question. It's not exactly healthy, in that it's not what I'd want to see in a community like this, but I think it's as good as it's going to get, given the circumstances. This may all be projection, but a part of the issue seems to be us accumulating cynicism as we grow older - I don't know how much I can play "steelman the opponent" post- gamergate, BLM, metoo, BLM2, COVID, and "WPATH to hell" - but more importantly I think it's less of a local culture problem, than a global culture problem. The culture of discourse that the rat-sphere sprang from is dead and buried. Personally I think it's because discourse is an existential threat to our ruling regime, and so people need to retreat to echo-chambers just to maintain society. From there, it's not exactly surprising that this place has become rather skewed in one direction, but the depressing thing is it's still better than the majority of alternatives.
It never had or has to be that way.
Why on earth is that your conclusion when the far simpler one is that people don't remain in spaces they find uncomfortable?
Sure, it doesn't have to, but surely you see how maintaining the levels of open-mindedness one had when they were 20, is fighting an uphill battle?
The question is why are they finding those spaces uncomfortable? We've had several high-profile flameouts stemming from tolerating too much Actual Nazism, racism and sexism, but basically none stemming from tolerating Actual Communism, CRT, and patriarchy theory.
When one holds views that are unpopular with the establishment, one has no choice but to develop a tolerance for pro-establishment views as they're being expressed everywhere, but there is no need to develop such tolerance when you're holding prop establishment views to begin with. You can always go somewhere where opposition to your ideas is not allowed to be questioned.
As to why I think open discourse is an existential threat to the regime, it's because they tell us so! Western governments are quite open about their need to control the kinds of views that are allowed to be spread on social media.
The other reason I usually hear for posters feeling uncomfortable boils down to being piled on. I have a lot of sympathy for this, but attempts to find solutions haven't really gone anywhere. I always suggest turning off the voting system, and rate-limiting responses to minority-view posters. Do you think that would help? Do you have any ideas on what could be done to alleviate feeling piled on?
Other than that have I missed something? Are there reasons for discomfort that don't boil down to tolerance for repugnant views, or being piled on?
Voting is literally the only way the community can respond to a persistent troll the mods have decided to enable. They can ban people for criticizing the troll, they can ban people for reporting the troll, but as far as I know they can't ban them for downvoting the troll.
I don't know why anyone would want to take that one recourse away from the users.
There was only one instance that I recall where this was an actual issue, and it was Darwin, and by the time we moved here, even the mods were tired of his schtick.
Because for every person that gets downvoted for being a troll, there are scores that get downvoted for having an unpopular opinion.
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