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 -
You: show me some examples of what high-quality Darwin looked like
Me: His AAQCs
You : sure, he made AAQCs....
ez win.
I'm not convinced guesswho is darwin, because guesswho was treated antagonistically, and constantly accused of being darwin, and if you are to be believed, a 'bad faith' poster.
At this point, I'm starting to lean towards you being either Impassionata (hi, guy!) or even Darwin himself. You're doing the same darn thing of repeating the same point over and over ("Darwin had AAQCs!") and ignoring every other point being presented.
AAQCs mean nothing. I've gotten some myself, and I certainly never put any effort into the ones that got recommended. I've also gotten some bans, and I have to admit I did flounce off once myself, and those are more meaningful.
Thank you for providing an example of how silly and far-fetched the accusations of being darwin got. You don’t seem to know anything about darwin, impassionata or me. This basically confirms guesswho wasn’t darwin, he was just annoyed, I get it.
That’s called being innocent of any wrongdoing and losing fair and square, respectively.
Meh. This would be good trolling but you're pushing it past the bounds of plausibility.
Not everyone who disagrees with this place treatment of dissenters is a troll or darwin or both. I’ve been robbed of the opportunity to fight a worthy adversary because people here couldn’t lose gracefully.
No, but you clearly are. And it would be decent trolling, but you went overboard.
Why? Because I don’t bow to the consensus? At one point in time, this place prided itself on its free speech ethos. We were like ‘progs don’t dare come to this place, but of course they’re welcome to try’. Now look at us. Are we men? “Bring it on” is treated like some absurd must-be-trolling position.
Because you're posting things no reasonable person would say in the course of a conversation, for no other purpose than to get a reaction. For a while it was a good gimmick. Good trolling is about getting the other person invested in responding, by providing just enough hope that if they provide the right arguments, you might concede. It stops working when it becomes obvious you're doing it just for the hell of it, and you've passed that point quite a while ago. Now it's just getting repetitive.
Let me make myself perfectly clear: I am not trolling. I genuinely think darwin should not have been banned, and that there’s a good chance goodguy was not darwin. You insisting on this being "trolling" is a failure to model the mind of others. Maybe you always end up changing your opinion when multiple people downvote you and tell you you’re wrong, but I don’t. I usually just hold onto my opinion, argue it, clarify/repeat it.
I’ve left enough comments. If I am a troll, why are my "trolling positions", seemingly “to get a reaction”, always pro-free speech, classical liberal ones?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link