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 -
He said "progressive/liberal." "Progressive" is kind of a dirty word hereabouts, basically interchangeable with "woke," but do you not consider yourself a liberal?
Really? So you think he could have said something similar about another group and not been modded? Why do you think that? Or are you agreeing with Hanik that the mods are ZOG collaborators? That would be a twist.
We aspire to consistency and objectivity and freely admit that we can achieve neither. But we generally can point to the rule that was broken and for all the times I have asked someone taking a bite out of our ankles to point to this mythical other foot on which can be found an equivalent shoe, it never ever happens. "You modded a Joo-poster for crossing a line, but you totally wouldn't do that on any other subject!" Okay, show me. Show me where someone else posted something equivalent and wasn't modded. Maybe it's happened, we do miss things. But every time I have made this request, what I get is a post that isn't equivalent and a 20-post-deep argument about why it's not. I mean, do I need to point out that in your link, @naraburns was not speaking as a mod? I am the one who posted a mod comment in that thread, and that was because @magicalkittycat was kind of pattern-matching as a Darwin-troll… it wasn't about his freedom to say what he thinks of Republicans.
"You're doing a good job and you also suck" is such a special snipe.
Thumps chest
*Laughs in self-contradiction*You have a post that was designed to be as equivalent as possible, specifically for the purposes of this type of request. Yes, we also have a 20-post-deep argument where you persist in claiming that the modding was for other non-specified comments, but the latest is that you've said no, that was all bollocks; the modding was for the completely and totally equivalent post.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure WhiningCoil made a comment earlier this year calling "urban youth" parasites or something similar and then some guy made a cringe top-level comment saying he was crashing out and leaving because there was no mod action about it and there was a whole big thread but I don't remember how it ended
AlexanderTurok was the one that crashed out. I think it ended with him getting permabanned for crashing out (he was already a pretty bad poster) but with the admittal that WhiningCoil was on his last rope for being too frequently inflammatory, too.
Thank you for enabling my midnight laziness
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Context and wording matter, but WhiningCoil has definitely been modded in the past for comments like that (and got really angry about it). A borderline comment might or might not have been modded that day.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In that case, why say progressive at all? And even then, the word 'liberal' contains multitudes. A Texas democrat, a Freddie De Boer flavor liberal who rarely culture wars, some kind of lawyer from Pittsburgh and some kind of software-adjacent lawyer are the vanguard now that everyone to their left is gone. Who's who, and whether that's an accurate cross-section of the label 'liberal' is left to you. 3-4 people is still not that many.
Once, I would have gotten pushback and been told I'm too sensitive and used to my progressive safe spaces and there's an even balance of left/right viewpoints. Now, there's tacit acknowledgement even from the mods that this is true and the party line has shifted to liberals are just too thin-skinned to deal with how wrong they are.
Sure, I'm probably a liberal, although I rarely participate in discussions and Mr. delVasto probably wasn't around when I did.
No, you aren't on the AIPAC payroll (or if you are, make me a mod daddy - I'll ban all the jew-haters tomorrow). But he was relatively polite, speaking clearly and it certainly wasn't low effort. His participation adhered to the rules better than Jiro saying 'Yeah, no' because he was butthurt about Jews being called parasites.
But yes, I'm pretty sure he could get away with hating on American blacks or illegal immigrants or Islamists or progressives or plenty of other groups for a lot longer than he could get away with hating on Jews. Coincidentally, there are a hell of a lot more Jews here than blacks or any of those other groups. Why do I think it would be modded differently? Because people hate on blacks and illegals all the time without consequence, maybe a bit less monomaniacally than SS, but just as virulently and often less articulately.
What does it matter? His views on his objectivity are the same whether he's posting with mod flair or not.
I don't have time to fully flesh this out because life, so concisely:
I think you're right to do #3, and that you do a good job of it. I just think it's hypocritical to claim to be advocates of free speech when the only difference between you and reddit is where you've drawn the line in the sand, and that line is largely a product of the views of your userbase.
I don't know - you guys said it, I didn't.
Which mods have acknowledged this?
I've called @Jiro out on his hypocrisy before because yes, he's definitely someone who believes you should be able to say any terrible thing about any group except his own. But -
This is just wrong and tells me you're either being disingenuous or you just don't pay attention.
No we don't. This is, again, flatly wrong. If we were free speech absolutists, we wouldn't ban people for calling brown people locusts and Jews parasites.
Bullshit.
Is it hard being a liberal ( or "progressive") here? Yes. But someone coming in saying Black Lives Matter and Trans Rights Are Human Rights would be allowed to argue for those positions. If ( when) they get banned, it wouldn't be for having unacceptable views but because it's dispiriting having an entire forum dogpile you and they tend to break and lash out. I admit we don't have a good solution for that. BUT - it must be said, one reason they break so readily is that they are just not used to people being allowed to dogpile them, instead of the other way around.
How many places on reddit or elsewhere can I very calmly and civilly argue for why I don't think trans women are women, or HBD may be real? Let alone the latitude we give to the likes of SS's performative Holocaust denial?
Yes, we do in fact allow more free speech than almost anywhere else that isn't "full of autistic 20 page screeds." No, we are not in fact free speech "absolutists." Yes, the community here has suffered evaporative cooling and a hardening of consensus viewpoints.
But your criticisms are off base and mostly just wrong when not outright disingenuous.
Hmm, this one I misremembered...
...although this is somewhat tacit acknowledgement.
Who have you banned for saying naughty things about blacks, immigrants, women or progressives on par with hanikrummihundursvin? I don't think faceh or sloot have been banned for ranting about women being the mental equivalent of children (afaict this ban was for being a generic asshole). You'll say whiningcoil is on the edge, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't eaten a 90 day ban and has plenty to say about immigrants wrecking his town.
Yes, this is my point...
...and how many places can hanikrummihundursvin calmly and civilly argue that he hates the subhuman subcontinental filth and Jewish parasites that are holding down the proud Aryan race? You're proud that the speech you like is allowed here while being verboten on reddit, even as you ban the speech you dislike and put boundaries on what the deplorables are allowed to say.
I have not, and would not deny it.
There is some truth to this. But there's more to the story than libruls are thin-skinned snowflakes who can't handle disagreement. Not everyone wants to share a space with people calmly and civilly advocating for political violence or genocide any more than you want to share a space with 4channers.
We've done this a couple times, and usually your argument is just repeating that you're wrong, Chrispratt. Do you think you're going to change my mind just by repeating that you think I'm wrong, or do you feel the need to defend your record to the audience? Are you worried I'm going to evaporate as well? If it's the latter, I'll probably hang around until this place dies from a lack of activity and things get boring - no need to try and convince me one way or another.
But anyways. You're wrong, Amadan. I think you're ingenuously wrong. I think you're all doing a good job as moderators, but I'm less and less impressed with the free speech argument the longer I stick around.
You seem to have a seriously different view of Amadan than I do. He's actually somewhat liberal, but he seems to have not moved along with the rest of the party when they took up their new issues in the last 15 years. I see him running up against the rest of the forum on a semi-regular basis, sort of like you, and he was one of the first ones to doubt my sincerity when I made my own post on the Holocaust.
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly the sort of pedantic argumentation I hate. I know for a fact I have personally warned and/or banned people for making posts about blacks and women and liberals and Democrats that crossed the line.
You, trying to play "Why did you ban Jimmy and not Johnny" for the zillionth time, want to litigate each and every case where we as mods decided that this post about Jews was acceptable but that post was not. You are being willfully obtuse. You know, because we have reiterated it many, many times, that you can make just about any argument if you can "color within the lines." Yes, that means what "crosses the line" is somewhat subjective. Does that bother you? Tough, it's how it's been for years. Do you think I or another mod made an error of judgment in an individual case? Maybe, it's possible! But I am not going to put much weight on your opinion, or anyone's opinion, who's just making bad and disingenuous arguments because they have general dissatisfaction that we mod people they think shouldn't be modded and don't mod people they think should be modded.
hanikrummihundursvin is not the only one who regularly posts about how much he hates the subhuman subcontinental filth and Jewish parasites that are holding down the proud Aryan race. And they usually don't get banned, because usually they can phrase it in a way that conforms to our rules. This is not Hanik's first, second, or twentieth time expressing how much he hates Jews, but sometimes he loses control, and he gets banned.
This is a lie, and I resent you lying about my motives and my actions. If I were banning speech I dislike, a lot more people would be banned. If I were putting boundaries only on the "deplorables," I wouldn't ban anyone expressing sentiments I broadly agree with (I assure you, I have).
This is not what I said. In a hypothetical Motte where the majority is liberal but with a zealous commitment to letting anyone argue anything as long as they do so civilly (gods, I wish such a place existed), someone who came in politely arguing that actually, blacks really are lower in IQ and higher in criminality and women really shouldn't be allowed to vote would probably get dogpiled relentlessly until he snapped. I do not think lefties are particularly more thin-skinned than righties -- though I do think in the current political climate, liberals are a lot more comfortable in a controlled speech environment and become a lot more uncomfortable in an environment like this one where speech is not controlled they way they're used to.
Yes. You are wrong.
No, I do not think I am going to change your mind.
"Why do you argue with ankle-biters?" is a question I often ask myself. Sometimes I even promise myself I am going to stop. Still working on it. That I still suffer from "People are wrong on the Internet!" syndrome is probably why I am still here.
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