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 assume a fair share of you have played competitive multiplayer games, and in those games, have been surprised at the amount of "toxicity" and "inting" that is present in these games. Most people find these behaviours annoying and consider them to be universally wrong. Instead, I will present an argument for why in some cases making these decisions is not only amoral, but justified using League of Legends games as an example.
When you make decisions in League of Legends, you are doing things that can be classified as cooperating or cheating. Cooperating would be playing the game to win like any other, while cheating would be doing things such as spam pinging, flaming, inting, playing overly selfishly, and voting to not surrender a clearly lost game. How much these actions annoy me or other people is context dependent; inting in a clearly lost game and inting a game you would have otherwise won are obviously different in scale. Similarly, a fed jungler smiting the red buff away from an ADC who is out of the game is obviously different from a jungler that is behind smiting it away from a fed ADC. In fact, we have a word for collectively inting a game that is lost, and that is called "opening", which is standard practice in Korea if a game is lost.
Another time where I would consider "cheating" acceptable if it is done in retaliation to other behaviours that you find unacceptable, done in proportion of course. For example, lets say you are playing Lee Sin and you are ganking for your Syndra, he stuns the enemy mid and you miss the q, he starts spam pinging you. While he is being a dick by pinging you for making an honest mistake, throwing the whole game by feeding the enemy mid would not be acceptable. A more proportional form of retaliation would be to steal away his cannon minion or blue buff, which will make him mad but wouldn't meaningfully change the course of the game. This kind of proportional retaliation would likely reduce the amount of "cheating" in the game because people would be less likely to cheat in the first place if they received some sort of punishment for it.
My own experience and reading on this subject leads me to believe that this is an absurdly wrong conclusion. Retaliation tends to be disproportional, because people tend to underestimate harm caused to the other in doing so. This is the reason behind the common saying, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link