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 -
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