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 -
This is probably a fine definition of doxing. I like this rule. Let's use this one. We'll no longer say that NYT Doxed Scott, instead they 'unmasked' him. KF also unmasks people's internet handles.
Generally, the NYT will try to contact a person that they write about, like all journalists. Are Kiwifarms victims afforded the same advance notice that Scott was afforded about the article being written about him? Do they offer people a chance to tell their own story?
If KF redacted personal details like address, contact info, and other obvious conduits for harassment, I still wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't call them... dangerous. I wouldn't say they ought to be knocked offline. They would day that this would hobble their ability to gather information, and they might be right.
You could well say 'it's all OSINT' or 'other services host this type of information.' But come on. Kiwifarms is a site devoted to bullying with a severity and scale that makes them an outlier. The thing about bullies is they'll always find a way to justify their actions. You can't argue your way out of being bullied. I'm not sure if you've ever been in such a situation, but I have, and the way out is to hit back.
That's exactly what happened. someone used Internet-asshole tactics to frame them and get them knocked offline.
All in all, stupid games / stupid prizes.
Great!
Well, I wasn't talking about being notified or having the chance to respond. Those are nice but I am not sure it is a good rule to say "it is not doxxing if you give them the chance to respond or advance notice it is happening."
Yes! Absolutely yes!
If you are the subject of a thread there, you can sign up, and, well, the first thing that happens is that the mods will lock your account, because lots of fakers show up. But within an hour or two the admins will reach out and verify your identity, and announce that it is really is you. You get a special flag in the forum called "Verified Participant" or something like that.
If the site was up I could find some examples for you.
Yes, and this is why I worked so hard to come up with a definition of doxxing! Everyone says "it is not doxxing when our side does it!" They come up with all sorts of bullshit reasons. "It was already public!" can apply to nearly any fact if you abuse it enough.
That is why I like "no posting the home address." We know that rule means and can ask a third-party to adjudicate that rule. We can add many more rules like that one, too, but each one needs to be understood and able to be used against anyone.
Any 'our side' that puts Kiwifarms on one side of the fence and NYT, WSJ, Fox, and let's say Newsmax on the other is questionable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link