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 -
I cannot say I'm surprised that you came back from your most recent ban, in which you were explicitly told to stop dropping flaming paper bags full of shit on the doorstep, to immediately do the exact same thing. But you cannot say you weren't fairly warned.
Banned. Most likely permanently, pending mod discussion.
How is this a flaming paper bag full of shit on our doorstep? The engagement I’m seeing is rather polite - no one is stomping on the bag, so to say.
That is more to the credit of the people engaging than the OP.
I totally reject the idea that the mods can detect and enforce bad (rules-breaking/bad faith/problematic etc) comments or topics in spite of other commentators engaging with it fruitfully. Dialogue is a two+ way street, if a comment hasn't led to mass rule-breaking or other problems then I don't see how you can pin the good-discourse on other people, and the bad discourse on the OP. That isn't how forums or discussions work. This is terrible.
Well, that's not how it works. First of all, very few comments lead to "mass rule-breaking or other problems." If someone posts flaming hot bait that violates multiple rules, and it happens to spawn an interesting thread, that's nice, but you don't get amnesty for breaking the rules because it started a decent discussion, and this poster in particular has a very bad track record and was explicitly told that if he did what he just did again he'd be banned.
Can you articulate what rules this broke?
Everything about the way his "thought experiment" (which in itself would have been fine) was presented was culture warring. "Leftists want more gays, they favor homosexuals in every arena, and will happily wipe out civilization in order to get more of them" is, as I said, a continuation of his past pattern in which everything is written as a maximally uncharitable boo outgroup. As is usually the case with such strawmanning, the core of his argument ("This is how I think leftists and rightists would react to a 'homosexual pill'") could have been made in a thoughtful manner that doesn't project purely evil and bad faith motivations onto his outgroup, but he made it clear that projecting purely evil and bad faith motivations onto his outgroup was the point of the post. This is what he has done for a long time. It describes pretty much everything he has ever posted, and he was told to stop it, and rather than showing the slightest willingness to adjust to the environment we're trying to create here, he made it clear he's just here to culture war and only to culture war. (I will further note he had other very bad posts in the thread, which were also reported, but we only responded to this one.)
It's no different than the drive-bys we get fairly frequently by a "new" poster with a flaming hot take on HBD: "Hey, since HBD is true, why do you think leftists pretend it isn't?" We do not prohibit HBD discussions; we don't even prohibit spicy HBD takes. We do prohibit people using HBD, or trans issues, or Holocaust denial, just to start threads about how malicious and dishonest their enemies are.
Some people can actually discuss the topic, even if they do actually believe their enemies are malicious and dishonest. @pointsandcorsi has never shown any interest in doing anything but starting a circlejerk about how malicious and dishonest his enemies are, and he was given repeated warnings to stop trying to do that.
This is the most annoying part and why I would support a ban. It poisons what would otherwise have been an interesting hypothetical with some promise to shed actual light on things. Worse, it poisons coming up with even more interesting hypotheticals that even lightly pattern match this sort of thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This person proposed a pretty interesting thought experiment which has spurred interesting discussion. It seems foolish to ban them for this.
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
More options
Context Copy link