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 -
The difference being that "the establishment" is meant to specify the criticism to the people with actual power, rather than generalize to everyone who might hold a particular view, and expecting them to defend it. For example, even though you call yourself "The Antipopulist" I would not lump you in with the establishment, and I would not demand that you, personally, defend the establishment's more controversial views and actions (unless there's something we don't know about you, and your position in mainstream institutions).
As for the claim that moderation has become asymmetrical in an anti-left direction, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you're not helping. You listed several examples of "bad posts" the last time this was brought up, and while I can agree there was something bad about them in that they contained heat that could be taken out to leave more light, you went on to defend posts that were much, much worse, and you're continuing to do so here. One of your examples was "outgroup politicians are 'foreign agents'", but the actual post is much closer to "Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent".
Like I said, I don't even mind having Turok around, he's mostly an asset for people like me. The only downside of his presence would actually affect people on the left than people on the right - his tone is contagious. You said you want moderation applied equally to everyone, well if he gets to post the way he post, and the same standard gets applied to the median motteposter, the level of aggression on this forum is going to rise substantially, and the quality of discussion is going to drop, and you'll again be distraught about how much the right-wingers are getting away with.
I don't get your point about "the establishment" in this particular context. Why does it matter if they have power (real or perceived) in regards to whether it's a specific or general group. Most people, even politicians, don't see themselves as "establishment". For some people, Trump as POTUS is the epitome of "establishment". For others, calling him that word is utterly ludicrous. Note that I personally think it's fine for people to attack "the establishment" -- I'm opposed to this rule in general.
And I'm not defending his post wholesale -- I agree the last bit is presumptuous and I'm fine with him being given a warning for something like that. I don't think throwing the gauntlet to someone like this is really that bad, but maybe I'm in the minority on that. I think personal attacks are far worse for productive conversations, which happen regularly and don't get punished (or even become AAQCs!) as long as it's someone with a right-wing opinion attacking someone with a left-wing opinion.
I also have some reservations with how it seems like a final warning from stuff like his previous post which didn't deserve a mod action at all.
It doesn't, I was just saying what a defining characteristic of a group called "the establishment" is. Who identifies as, and who doesn't, who exactly that group includes, etc., doesn't really matter, the point is that anti-establishmentarians don't get to come here, pick the most ridiculous thing said or done by the powers that be, and demand that posters roughly identifying as centrists or "anti populists" defend it as though they have a personal stake in it.
If you think that's the main problem with that specific post is presumptuousness, or if you think the final warning is result of his previous post only, you're not approaching this in an objective manner. The issue is his constant antagonism.
Under the other post you claim you don't want moderation to aggregate transgressions by ideology, and adjust for that, but rather that you want the same enforcement no matter who the transgression is coming from. I believe this is mostly (adjusted for the mods being only human) what you're getting. You're not going to find another poster exhibiting the same pattern of constant antagonism, which I think you were aware of when you pushed back against my request for examples.
Also, if you think Turok is no worse than the average posters here, and is only getting modded because of rightwing bias, why do you think he got banned from ACX and DSL?
Specifically, which AAQC had a personal attack? Gattsuru's? Can you quote the part that contains the personal attack?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link