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 -
Above standards, there is politics, and there is tribalism. Take the Culture War Thread, for example. "This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here."
Is that how we act here? Look at the gun discussion from last week. Do the votes look like they track response quality (i.e. of argument), or do we simply have a large American gun-owning population that vehemently downvotes anything that might be the slightest bit critical of their god-given constitutional right? And of course, it's not just the voting. I regularly see people with minority views accused of being trolls, of being alts, etc. etc.
This is a rising trend on the broader internet. Even going into a reddit thread trying to post some polite, neutral information, not even taking a side draws downvotes because it pattern-matches a tribe. It didn't used to be like that. Again, this is politics and tribalism, not standards or correctness.
Partially.
Before you had us look, I would have assumed so (for a loose enough definition of "large") ... but now that I look, I note that "In the counterfactual world where the US had banned guns ten years ago, I don't think that all of the people who killed themselves with firearms in our world would have instead hanged or drowned themselves. In fact, I don't think that even 50 or 25% of them would have done so." is currently sitting at +17, -0.
I've definitely seen too many downvotes here, including in that thread, that appear to be more for disagreement than for low quality, but it's more subtle and less voluminous than you're suggesting.
Fair point. That response was less than maximally pro-gun, but it is 1. is mostly on the topic of suicide, 2. still pretty lukewarm, and comes with a healthy amount of throat clearing: "I'm not arguing that this, in itself, is a persuasive argument in favour of banning guns, and can see the merits of both sides of the debate (particularly the "guns as a check against encroaching authoritarianism" argument advanced by many, including Handwaving Freakoutery, formerly of these parts)".
Why is this comment +10,-16 for merely making an argument? Or this one? +10,-12
Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Does not even get small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points.
Perhaps the rhetorical flourish at the end?
Perhaps the jeering paragraph objecting to "fun" being a reason for things to be legal, or the tiresome cars/guns comparison?
No, a downvote is not a bullet, and an argument against bullets is not an argument against "small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points".
The same rhetorical flourishes that would go overlooked on posts in favour of the prevailing view? I don't buy it.
A downvote is not a bullet. It's more like a middle finger, or a scowl, or an eye-roll, but that's enough. It's enough to say "we don't want you here. go away", and that's my point. It's against the spirit of this forum. It is politics and tribalism above the pursuit of truth.
They'd likely be downvoted, just by different people.
All I'm seeing is crying about rhetorically dishing it out but not being willing to take even the most minor pushback.
A lot of the heavily downvoted comments in that thread are not rhetorically spicy. Must I? Fine..
I think the most likely explanation is that our readership is doing opinion war when it comes to an issue they really care about, and that's bad. I picture Motte-Jesus storming this temple, flipping tables screaming "Stop turning my Father's house into an echo chamber!"
What, you think people don't know when they are being sneered at?
I think the most likely explanation is that you're upset that you can't convince anyone at the object level, so you're resorting to shaming over meta-level concerns.
No, and if those posts had been left at +1,0 I would not have said a word.
This is solely about the negative reinforcement on unobjectionable comments that merely have an unpopular opinion. The people who downvote those are doing this forum wrong. I will die on this hill.
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