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 theory would work only if the account has a large number of comments/ is very active. Pseudonymous account activity is power-law distributed. I.e a small number of accounts comment a lot, most don't at all.
I know 3 "normies" from the meat-sapce who use reddit. Their reddit accounts are literally all generic posts in hobby subreddits such as /r/cars,r/programming,r/memes. Those accounts would fail your test.
And moreover, I use reddit for buying/selling things too. I have a very "clean" account for that where I rarely post anything ever at all, given I don't want people who will see me in real life to know about my dickstretching habit. I think similarly a large contingency of people will use a "clean" account devoid of any dickstretching for business reasons.
tldr; I think your model will produce mostly false negatives.
A preponderance of false negatives isn't a flaw if the harm of a false negative is negligible (at worst opportunity cost) while the harm of a false positive is high (thousands of dollars, who knows what else).
The two use cases I pointed to where I've noted its usefulness on reddit were r4r and buying a luxury watch. If I miss out on a Rolex because i didn't trust the seller, the harm is that I don't own a Rolex for whatever period it takes me to find a trustworthy seller, which might be no time at all if there are Rolex's available from sellers who pass. If I buy a Rolex and get scammed, I'm out two grand or more. If I miss out on an actual hot milf who wants to meet in my area because I don't trust the account's vibe, I've missed out on absolutely nothing as long as I have more applicants than available calendar dates, and on nothing but the time it takes to find a trustworthy account otherwise. If I get scammed by an online bot account, well as I type this I realize I don't actually know what happens then but I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be good for me.
So it might be limited to similar circumstances. It would not be a practical way to buy something I actually needed in short order. Or a practical way to assess the credibility of information I needed to look up regularly.
Contact your credit card issuer immediately and ask for a chargeback or try to claim a fraud complaint. Sometimes the card company might actually allow a chargeback if they have sufficient reason to believe it was a scam (and you didn't sign a contract or such).
If that fails, you will probably have take the L unless you want to hire a lawyer (or some goons).
I was thinking less in the charge on credit card range than in the "How would you feel about your mother/boss/priest seeing these conversations?" direction. Or maybe the "Show up and get beat up and robbed" direction. But I've never gotten anywhere near either, afaik, nor do I really know of stories of people who have. But it's always the worry right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link