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 -
We know the state and its partisans are hypocrites. We try not to be hypocritical here.
It's still not clear to me what you and Whining want. To be allowed to openly talk about people who should be killed? To talk about when it's time to take up arms against the state?
This is a non-hypothetical question: how do you think our moderation policies are wrong, and how do you think we should correct them? Because from my POV (and as I mentioned above, our "moderation policies" are literally plural, as the mods try to be consistent but obviously we have a lot of latitude to use our judgment case by case), we are just trying to enforce rules like "Don't make death threats" and "Don't talk about doing obviously illegal shit." But we didn't tell anyone they can't talk about resisting the state or non-compliance.
Whining is the one who came in indignant because @self_made_human moderated @remzem for a shitty post. smh's reasoning was not even that remzem was advocating violence! He got modded for boo outgrouping. (The fact that @remzem has a long history of shitty edgelord posts worked against him.) So it looks kind of like Whining got triggered by a post that expressed sentiments he agreed with and thinks he might get modded for, and what do you want us to do about it?
More options
Context Copy link