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 -
Two articles are popping today that I believe are related. Both are reasons for censorship or reasons the left has used to justify censorship.
https://twitter.com/scottgottliebmd/status/1612548694762745856?s=46&t=0qCqhJLXqMO-wn5FoPsWKg
The best he has is some anonymous account saying “execute this bastard”. Obviously with anonymous accounts anyone can just randomly vent and say something mean. It could even be Scott Gottlieb saying this about himself so that he can then asks for censorship of others in the name of “violence”.
Obviously people shouldn’t be threatened but a random message board comment I don’t think rises to the occasion of a real threat - though I’d agree those accounts should be suspended banned that make violent threats. They shouldn’t be used to censor non violent debates.
And the rest of the tweets he cited are not threats but calling him a murder and bastard. Being that he’s citing tweets that are not calls to violence does that means he total received only one anonymous threat to justify censorship of dissenting scientist?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/
Another claim for censorship especially in 2020 and especially for the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian troll/bots interferes with the 2016 election and now we need to censor people. NYPost/Zerohedge got censored on these justifications.
At first I thought these were both solid culture war stories to post about but didn’t feel like doing two posts. Then I realized their connected and both are weak reasons that have been used for significant censorship and deplatforming.
This won’t be popular here, but I honestly support heavyhanded censorship of toxicity on social media even if it is used as a fig leaf to specifically target my own political beliefs, as long as it actually also removes hateful comments.
It never works this way. What is actually - and always - happening is there's a preferred narrative and there are in-groups and out-groups. It may not be stated explicitly, but it always happens one way or another. Comments dissenting from preferred narrative are deemed "misinformation". Comments offending the in-group are deemed "hate" - even if they are formulated in most polite and courteous terms possible (e.g.: there's no way to disagree with sexuality/gender theory and not be labeled "hateful" and "phobe", regardless of how polite and considerate you are). On the contrary, comments agreeing with the narrative would be deemed "truth" and "science", regardless of their agreement with the objective facts, and comments targeting an out-group would be deemed "vigorous discussion vital for our democracy", no matter how many f-bombs and calls for violence they contain.
What you are probably envisioning is some kind of clean space where everybody is polite and rational and are having thoughtful arguments, and you want that even at the cost of brutal repression. That is not what will happen however - the brutal repression would never be applied equally, and the space would be a paradise for whoever wants to "own" the other side, the side of the outgroup, and hell for whoever is on the other side.
To illustrate an example, if comments disparaging a vaccine are not allowed on the basis that it might lead to advocates of vaccination being threatened, then fairness would require removing comments praising a vaccine because it might lead to anti-vaxxers being threatened.
Of course, in the real world, the overwheming majority of violence committed was done by vaccine advocates against detractors, in the form of vaccine mandates. Wanting critics of vaccines censored for safety is dubiously linked. Wanting advocates of vaccines censored to lower risk of mass violence againsy the unvaccinated is less so. Yet how receptive do you think twitter would be to me claiming that pro-vaccine messaging encourages violence?
It's easily generalized - any advocacy for an idea X can be reframed as a dangerous call for violence against those who disagree with X. And if you doubt that, you can always find one or two idiots that would be willing to write on Twitter "if you disagree with X, you must die!". And if you find yourself in a rare idiot drought, you can always open an new twitter account and do it yourself... This form works absolutely regardless of the content, and thus can be applied against (or for) anything, provided you have the necessary power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I find this a pretty strange stance, how much hate do you actually experience in your mainstream social media spheres? I find I need to intentionally seek it out to actually find it. In my experience nearly everyone who seems to have a problem with social media being toxic are the people you avoid if you don't want to see hate/toxicity on social media.
More options
Context Copy link
If that’s the case then you close down all social networks. Anyone can spew up some toxicity to close down other view points.
Then your throwing Biden off twitter because I said something mean about trump. And trumps banned because one supporter said means things about Biden.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link