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 -
Calling yourself a reactionary means a lot of things to a lot of different people and it would get you banned in a lot of places. Same with traditionalism.
So it's just a shit post that doesn't subjectively irk the mods as much.
The comment you replied to was making the point that the ruleset was not objective. That it was instead just the mod team asserting their aesthetic preference. The mods have now said exactly that. You are just wrong in your prior assertion about the rules.
You still didn't call out a single stance that I hold which can be gleaned by the tagline. "Reactionary" just means someone who believes that, for at least one topic, some group in the past did things slightly better than they way they are now. The definition of the word itself is anodyne.
For example, the thing I am most reactionary about is that I believe we did a lot of child-rearing better in the past. We've slaughtered nature and kept kids in an electronic bubble, preventing them from calming down or encountering something transcendent. More kids have never existed due to car seat regulations than lives saved by car seat regulations.. Parents used to be able to send small children to be entertained by groups of other small children, playfully existing outside while the mother did economically useful tasks, such as textile production and food processing. Instead, we have created a system that maximally stresses out parents while preventing kids from thriving.
Were you able to guess any of that by my tagline? Meanwhile, the username with 1488 in it tells me the poster is arguing when creating their username some variation of "the Holocaust didn't really happen the way people think, but the Jews deserved it anyways." There isn't really a wide range of possibilities there.
My tagline is not, "Repeal Car Seat Regulations." That would be myself making a provocative argument in a place people wouldn't be able to counter-argue.
I don't think the Mods said exactly that they are "asserting their aesthetic preference." That is not in the mod chain I can see at least. Ctrl+F "aesthetic" doesn't come up with any hits. Instead, it looks like you are badly misinterpreting them.
Reactionary means what I as a pretend mod believe it to mean. Just like the mods here believe that the 88 in 1488 stands for Heil Hitler and not the 88 Precepts. There is nothing viscerally objectionable to either. You can argue, like I tried, that there exists ample wiggle room in both 14 and 88 for it not to mean what you assert it must. But those arguments were not had and simply ignored in favor of mod subjectivity. Which, in your case, would be something along the lines of 'misogynist incel wants to chain women to the home'. It's not fun when your positions are reduced from their actual state to something along the lines of
But that's what we have from more people than just the mods, I guess.
What you are doing here is exactly what I was trying to do when I asked the mods to clarify their ruling. The mods did not clarify the ruling on the terms of my arguments. They just told me to stick a sock in it. If you want a genuine response from me, as a pretend mod, to all the stuff you wrote its: lmao, banned.
To give a copy paste response to what I got, just with changed labels:
.
I didn't say that they said that. I said that this is what they are doing. What they said is what is quoted above. I'd appreciate you extend some charity in interpretation here. If you can't understand what I mean by 'aesthetic' you can just ask. The reason I used that term is because the mods have no way of knowing what the person intends, nor what the effect the persons actions will have. What they do know, however, is that they want their website to look like something. And, as we can tell by their actions, that something doesn't look like 1488 regardless of any argument made or reason given. It's not about the content, it's about the look and feel. It's not based on reason; it's based on subjective preference.
You can argue that there can be value in the choice regardless of that, and I'd agree. But that's not relevant to the contention being made.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link