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 -
A few things.
First, nobody likes a flouncer. You would not be the first to decide this hive of scum and villainy is too much for you and crash out. And that's entirely fair. This place is not for everyone. But if you think loudly declaring you will take your marbles and go home will effect a change in the status quo... no, it probably won't. We allow people with unpleasant views to say their piece if they can stay just this side of attacking individuals or groups. That's by design, it's because we want to have a place where you can actually be exposed to someone able to make an argument for a point of view you might find reprehensible. I do not like racists, blackpillers, incels, white nationalists, accelerationists, Holocaust deniers, and our various other deplorables, but where else can I go (except a forum specifically dedicated to those views, which would be nothing but unfiltered bile and rageposting) to hear what they actually believe and engage with them?
"But I don't want to engage with racists!" you say. And again: fair enough. Maybe this place is not for you. But what is it you want, exactly? For us to be less racist, collectively? Then be one of those who pushes back. For us to not allow people to be racist? Might as well just demand we ban all the deplorables, right?
Second: @WhiningCoil earned a number of reports on that post. He gets reported a lot as he descends further into his bitter nihilistic hole. He's been temp-banned many times under his various alts since he first started blackpilling hard on reddit, so it's not like his seething rants about how much he hates (an ever-expanding range of people) have gone without consequences. That post (and several others of his) are in fact still sitting in the mod queue because I decided I was not going to be the one to make a decision about them.
Borderline posts about how much you hate your enemies are, well, borderline, and whether we decide they cross the line depends a lot on how a particular mod reads the particular wording. Outright saying "Black people are a violent invasive species" would be unambiguously cause for a ban. Saying plainly "I hate black people" would get a lot of reports but would actually be allowed. You are allowed to hate people here! Making a nasty innuendo is, well, borderline. Same goes for a lot of the various posts we get about Jews Jews Jews.
As for the upvotes, would it surprise you to know that many of our most heated, reported, and ban-baiting posts also get heavily upvoted? The more spicy your screed about how much you hate Those People, the more likely that a lot of other people who also hate Those People will upvote you. Yes, that means we have a lot of haters here. You'll notice quite a few people also downvote those posts, though, so it's not one-sided.
So yes, this site is "tainted by racism." We have racists here, and they aren't banned just for being racist. That is intentional. The intent is not to be a haven for racists (though we've certainly been accused of being just that), but to be a place where people can say the things they can't say elsewhere, and then have to defend it. I only wish more people like you would muster the wherewithal to argue back instead of just getting indignant and leaving.
I can see two ways of looking at this mod reply. Slightly uncharitable take: Mod leaves WhiningCoils reported message to mod queue, but has the time and join in the reply pile-on to a rage-quit message with a 3k character lecture about principles of the Motte. More charitable take, WhiningCoil's comment got both pushback from the commentariat and mod attention, so the mods feel need to point out the rage-quitter's complaints were not justified.
Speaking of the principles of the Motte ... the stated principle is "to be a place where people can say the things they can't say elsewhere, and then have to defend it". Very eloquent, but many people and groups have lofty-sounding idealistic principles that fail to produce intended results. Is the Motte a place where people come to say the things they can't say elsewhere and have to defend it? How often? Do the rules help or hinder such interactions?
Looking at the previous CW thread, I think the Epstein discussions had most back-and-forth argumentation with most genuine effort to present evidence and argue. Quickly scanning, this OP, this discussion of shot-down airplanes in Serbian war and movie script discussion yielded some discussion with occasional real disagreement. So did Turok's top-level posts, which were perhaps not the best as arguments, but they produced adversarial disagreement. Not certain if any of the rest of top-level posts satisfy the same criteria. More often than not, it looks like people chiming in with not too dissimilar opinions, not a vigorous argumentation to dismantle or defend a controversial opinion.
Regarding @WhiningCoil and why I didn't mod him: first, sometimes a mod doesn't want to mod a particular comment for any number of reasons. It might be because they have a history with that user and are afraid they might be too biased. It might be because they are uncertain how "bad" it is and whether it merits modding (and honestly, they want some other mod to make the call). It might be because it's ambiguous enough we actually need to have a discussion in the mod channel about it. It might be because they just don't feel like taking the effort to write a justification statement for the banning, which especially in borderline cases, where the user is popular, and/or when we expect pushback, needs to be written with some effort to explain our reasoning, rather than just "Bad post, 3-day ban." Regardless of the actual length of the mod message, they do require more effort and thought than a regular post, because I assure you, we all take the responsibility seriously, we don't just react on impulse and ban people when they sufficiently annoy us.
In this case it was a little of all of those. I thought @WhiningCoil's comment was bad, but... eh, assuming you take his story at face value (which generally one should not, you might have noticed how very, very "on the nose" most of his stories are, with anecdotes stocked with horrible NPC caricatures from Central Casting), yes, he was very clearly making an intentional, racialized comment, but he was also (allegedly) describing a real situation. I expected a modding would result in people complaining that we're trying to forbid Noticing (tm). I didn't want to make the call because I am well aware of his animosity and I felt like a mod warning would be better from someone else he can't scream is persecuting him (and whose mod message he would actually read). I knew modding him would require me writing a detailed response justifying it (the sort that @naraburns is much better at), for the benefit of other posters, if not WC. And also, ironically, I like WC (as a poster, though not so much as a person) and he writes quite a few AAQCs. I would prefer he just tone it down rather than getting banned or rage-quitting, but unfortunately his cumulative record is bad enough that he's getting close to a permaban, and I just didn't want to add another stone to that pile, even if he deserves it.
As for the stated principles of the Motte: those are principals. They are aspirational. Do we always achieve those lofty goals? I am certainly not going to say every thread here is high quality discussion full of smart people saying intelligent things. We definitely do not see everyone acting with "charity and kindness." Still, I do think this place is not quite like anywhere else. There are reddit communities that are still good (for some value of "good") but only if the discussion stays away from certain topics. There are places where people can talk about "forbidden" topics (HBD, Holocaust denial, trans-critical views, etc.) but those places are full of people who outright hate the people they are talking about, and no matter how lofty and intellectual they try to be, the seething hate is always evident (and they are not much better than reddit about dealing with contrary opinions).
So is the Motte "converging" on an accepted range of opinions? Maybe, kind of, but we still have some leftists here, there is anything but a unanimous consensus on HBD and trans people and Jews, and the current events topics, the AI topics, the history topics, do often have genuinely high quality and interesting discussions from knowledgeable people with very different perspectives. We get accused of various things from being a "right-wing" site to being a den of seven zillion witches, but I think our principles are still intact if imperfectly enforced. I see the Motte kind of like America: it's never really lived up to its ideals nor fulfilled its promises, the "community" and sense of shared goals is often a polite fiction, and we flounder and sometimes fail, but damned if it doesn't still beat the alternatives.
More options
Context Copy link
Since I keep getting pinged in this paragraph, I want to make one thing clear.
I have not been banned on various alts. I had a single original account that I was afraid of getting doxed under when something I posted attracted the wrong sort of attention. I burned it, made a new one, and immediately came to Motte moderators and told them the entire situation. Maybe that's before Amadan's time, or maybe he just likes to invent lies to make me look worse. But that's another reason I'm generally better off not engaging with him or respecting his moderation of me at all.
Dude, for someone who has outright made up so many things about me and what I have said when I have not, it's rich you calling me a liar. (Yes, I know you have me blocked, but I also you know you'll see this message anyway when you look for messages while logged out.)
I know what your original account was on reddit. You switched to a new one, came here with yet another one, and I am pretty sure you went through a couple others along the way-I will admit I might be misremembering those (though I think I could name them). I do know you have been modded and banned pretty regularly under whichever alt you're using.
You can feel how you feel, but my moderation of you has been, if anything, more charitable than what other mods would have been.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that the original comment wasn’t even an argument.
There is a fundamental tension with this moderation stance: while “Black people are a violent invasive species” may be ban-able, it’s at least an idea that can be challenged and dissected. However, “I hate black people” cannot, especially if it’s expressed without any surrounding context to challenge.
What is someone supposed to even say to that? There is no idea to respond to, only a person, but we are not allowed to make personal attacks. It’s frustrating to hear the only response to @shoeonfoot — “just debate the hot takes” — completely miss the point.
Your opinion is just as valid as his. “I hate spending time with racists” is fine. So is “I think racists are shooting themselves in the foot.” Neither of those is booing the outgroup, and neither is building consensus. No one can take your preferences from you.
More options
Context Copy link
What do you want? A rule that if someone expresses a disagreeable sentiment, you are allowed to say "Wow, you're a racist, fuck off"?
The current "correct" response to someone expressing a bigoted sentiment is ignoring it, then? Would replying "This is a grossly bigoted statement" be considered a personal attack or what have you?
I would say it’s not.
You’d probably get a bunch of knee-jerk reactions writing you off as a stereotypical SJW, so it might be frustrating, but it wouldn’t be against the rules.
More options
Context Copy link
It depends who they're being racist against.
Antisemites, you are normally free to call them Jewposters or accuse them of obsession with "da Joos."
If anyone tries anti white racism the tradition is to accuse them of trolling and bad faith, because surely they don't actually believe it.
East Asians are normally where we see a real fight, posters will land half and half on whether it's justified or not.
But blacks, south Asians, any Muslims, the expectation is that you calmly engage with the meat of their argument, such as it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The original comment wasn't about African-Americans in general though but about the African-American criminal underclass.
More options
Context Copy link
It depends on the context.
"I hate black people. Black people suck! We should get rid of them!" would be an obvious violation of the site's ethos of aiming to bring light instead of heat.
"I hate black people. However, I realize that this is an emotional reflex and if I analyze things more objectively, I realize that not all black people fit the stereotype that I have of them." would not be a violation, since it would bring more light than heat.
WhiningCoil's comment is, to me, pretty clearly more like my first example than like the second. But as Amadan pointed out above, WhiningCoil has not been exempt from mod action, so it seems to me that the system is working decently.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link