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 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