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 -
Is it your belief that reddit would not suppress /r/crimesofblacks or a similar more neutrally named subreddit? If not, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's the presentation as opposed to the content that got the subreddit banned.
In the first place, they probably would indeed ban a more neutrally-named subreddit.
But in the second place, the basic problem is that whatever you call it, such a subreddit would be doing exactly the same objectionable thing that the admins are doing, just with the polarity reversed. A subreddit that selectively spotlights misbehavior by members of one race is going to create an inaccurate perception of how often such people misbehave.
Hatecrimehoaxes was useful because it answered lies someone else was telling. CrimesofBlacks would not be doing that. Hiding the crimes of blacks because they're black is a bad thing to do. Spotlighting crimes of blacks because they're black is wrong for exactly the same reason. One could argue that since such information is actively being suppressed, spotlighting is needed to counteract the suppression. Unfortunately, I don't think human communication actually works like that.
If you decry samizdat, what then do you think is a proper response to information suppression? Start your own mainstream media?
I don't decry samizdat. A subreddit that collects examples of articles excluding mugshots and matching them to the mugshots so excluded would be a good thing. Even better if they can highlight cases where the same paper includes or excludes mugshots based on the race of the perp. What is not useful is posting examples of [insert race] crime because of their race, even if you know for a fact that others are coordinating suppression of such examples. Such suppression is best defeated by spreading the "despite" meme, which is the obvious, bare-bones truth. Attempting counter-propaganda from a position of weakness just one's arguments easier to dismiss, in addition to all the other arguments against employing dishonesty for political gain.
I guess I'm having trouble seeing the distinction you are drawing. If suppression of [insert race] crime information is taking place, then highlighting examples of that suppression must necessarily entail posting example of [insert race] crime.
highlighting examples of suppression is just fine. that is not what /r/greatapes was doing. If someone suppresses facts about a specific incident and you point out what they're doing, that's good. If you highlight all examples of bad behavior based on whether it's done by a particular group, that is bad, even if someone else is suppressing all evidence of that same group behaving badly. Common knowledge about bad behavior is not enhanced by the direct propagation of irrational biases.
More options
Context Copy link
Then highlighting examples of that suppression must necessarily entail posting that specific crime associated with that specific suppression. A subreddit that generically highlights examples of [insert race] crime doesn't actually highlight examples of suppression of [insert race] crime taking place.
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