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 -
And there go the goalposts. First the objection was that the comment was downvoted for "merely making an argument". Then, when it's pointed out the comment actually was doing something other than that, it's a complaint about different standards.
You're not the moderator of internet points. And the moderators here, so far as I know, don't moderate internet points. Further, they do moderate responses, so when someone posts some shit implying me and anyone who shares my views is as out-of-touch as Principal Skinner from the Simpsons, I can't just respond with "fuck off, you supercilious asshole" because that will get me modded; internet points are all I got.
The 'children' in this case are all the other countries in the First World. The point is that American disputes tend to act as if the rest of the world doesn't exist, hence cject's OP implying that nobody anywhere has any trust in their fellow citizens except in certain parts of the US and in the Third World, which I find frankly ridiculous.
And this is in fact my point. People, not just you but in general, immediately leap from 'I don't like this opinion' to forming the worst possible interpretation of the post and then downvote. Meanwhile they apply much more generous standards to people who agree with them. This is Confirmation Bias 101, everyone knows humans do this. These are such sensitive issues and the resultant standards are so strict that, in practice, (and, yes, in my opinion since as you point out I am not Tzar of internet points) there is no meaningful gap between "a complaint about different standards" and "downvoted for merely making an argument".
It wasn't you who posted it, unless you're a corvid as well as a corvos. But the offending bit is:
The straightforward interpretation is that either you accept the insulting characterization in the first part, or you're completely out of touch (note the URL). This absolutely deserves a downvote.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link