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 -
There used to be a time where I thought newspapers would be forced to either do something like:
or:
Of course, there's no enforcement mechanism. Only putting direct quotes between quotation marks isn't a fundamental law of the universe, after all, and nobody cares about those standards of precision.
fakeEdit: and if they were just correcting grammar, then they should have added a comma after "Of course...", so it's not an evenhanded application of their standards.
See also the CBC, here: They omitted "...of Alberta..." from their quote of the referendum question because it flows better and they don't care about precision.
Style guides vary, but maximal precision in quotes, er, string literals is the domain of software engineers. The Jargon File has some relevant pithy quotes:
For example, the American convention is to move punctuation to within quotation marks. It probably capitalizes without annotation the first word of a sentence even if it was quoted from within a sentence. I can see a weak argument for "correcting" capitalization from a written quote: if it was said aloud, it'd have been ambiguous anyway.
Maximal precision in string literals is referring to a different type of precision. To a software engineer, this sentence is incorrect:
The phrase "my quotation" is the same as "my quotation."
because a period is either part or not part of a string and those two options aren't the same string.
But this sentence is fine:
The quotation "I'm making the point that [X] via a careful logical application of [point Y], and [point Z]" can be summarized as "Y and Z imply X".
because quotation marks are how you indicate that something is a single string variable (a noun phrase, essentially) whose internals have no syntactic impact externally. IMHO it's actually pretty annoying that there's no clean universal English-language way to do this. Often you can get away with punctuation to delimit a phrase if you reword the sentence a little, or you can use a hyphenated-compound-word if it's short enough and if it's needed as disambiguation (which it isn't in this sentence; the rule is so non-universal that I'm already breaking it here), but there's nothing as clean as the programming rule: wrap it in these delimiters and you're done. (Isn't that colon so much more annoying than quotation marks would have been there?)
To an American journalist (and to most non-journalist normies, honestly), the first sentence is fine (it's just using the "typesetters' quotation" rule, common in America, for how commas and periods interact with quotation marks) and the second is wrong (because quotation marks around text are "to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name"), not just a mere paraphrase, unless the paraphrase is also marked via brackets. It's not that journalism is supposed to be less precise, it's just that it's supposed to be following a different set of rules.
I've spent most of my life writing software for fun and for school and for a living, and I frequently have to fix it when I catch myself slipping up (or get caught by others while slipping up) in just this way when writing English, and although I probably fail to catch myself even more often I'm at least trying. I feel that someone who went into the humanities in school and writes English for a living and doesn't have a half dozen incompatible computer languages twisting their brain and does have an editor trying to catch their slip-ups can be fairly held to the same standard.
Moreover, in these cases we're not even talking about misquotations where the rules disagree! Omitting a phrase like "of Alberta" would be incorrect by both journalistic and programmers' rules - the use of quotation marks is fine by programmer's rules, but the semantic meaning of the sentence including it is false! That's even worse! Errors which fail to compile are much better than errors that compile but then give you the wrong results!
I'm still happy (by which I mean persuaded and unhappy) with my theory that technological/economic devastation of newsroom employment means we're now stuck getting our news from people who make bad life choices.
More options
Context Copy link
I wish fully logical quotation was the standard; I should be able to say something like "He said 'the sky is blue.'.". But I'd just look like a retard.
Say, speaking of the Jargon File, ESR has his own take on this incident.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In theory, there is an enforcement mechanism: D'Souza could sue them for defamation, on the basis that his brand was damaged by NYT quoting him as using their style guide (since his fanbase considers said style guide an enemy identifier). I'm not sure he'd succeed, but the threat of such suits is a good chunk of why quotes are/were sacrosanct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link