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 -
How can you respond to this comment without modding it? The other poster is claiming without any evidence that ICE is kidnapping presumably Americans. That’s an extraordinary explosive claim wi the zero evidence.
We are often asked to mod people for "being dishonest."
We aren't mindreaders. We often suspect someone is being disingenuous, but the poster may really believe what he is saying. (You are surely aware that most progressives do consider illegal immigrants "us" so it's not implausible to me that they really believe ICE is "kidnapping people.")
Do I think @LiberalRetvrn is sincere, or a troll trying to push buttons? He's certainly on our radar, but making bad arguments is not something we ban people for. Demanding we mod people for "being dishonest" is asking us to use more personal discretion in judging posts than I think you really want. Lots of regulars are, IMO, at the very least fond of making unsubstantiated and unverified claims very confidently.
"Inflammatory claim with insufficient evidence" is the rule usually cited. Contrary to what many people think, though, this does not mean "A claim that inflamed (pissed off) me and that I don't believe."
But how is “they are kidnapping us” not an inflammatory claim without sufficient evidence?
"Inflammatory" is subjective. We don't apply it every time someone says something that pisses you off. Arguably almost every argument made here is inflammatory to someone, and unsurprisingly, people who don't agree with the argument made typically consider it to have been presented with insufficient evidence.
I already pointed out the answer to your specific case: charitably, @LiberalRetvrn does consider the people ICE is arresting to be "us" and he does consider their actions to be lawless and tantamount to "kidnapping." I am not speaking for @LiberalRetvrn here, but this is definitely a perspective common on the left, and I'm sure you know this. That this make you angry does not make it "inflammatory" such that we're going to mod people who say it. (Nor should you make any assumptions about whether or not I personally agree with the argument.)
As a meta-comment, one of the failures of the Motte is that while in theory, we are here to debate and argue and test ideas, in principal most people just want validation, venting, and affirmation. When they see an argument they don't like- especially from an ideological opponent, especially someone whose tone or style or specific POV really pisses them off - rather than saying "Ah, someone with a challenging perspective to take on!" or "Hmm, a worthy opponent?" they rush for the report button, and then yell at the mods for not shutting the mf up.
Now here's a concrete example: "ICE is killing dozens of people every day!" would be an inflammatory and falsifiable claim that you could legitimately demand some evidence for. "ICE is kidnapping people" - well, you're going to have an argument over what constitutes "kidnapping." And that's okay.
Kidnapping suggests illegal. Where is the illegality? Now you are going to say that lefties can define words to mean other than commonly defined terms.
You mod for much less absurd things.
That's a fair question. Address it to the person you are arguing with.
Oh, I see. You don't want to argue with him. You just want us to shut him up.
You are failing to articulate a broader principle than "This poster annoys me, make him stop." But sure, if it soothes you to believe it's about protecting lefties, you go right ahead and tell yourself that.
This is particularly amusing given the guff we're taking elsewhere.
I am sure your opinion of what other absurd things I have modded for is equally reasonable and principled.
First, you are being an ass. I didn’t ask you to mod for an opinion I disliked. I’m pointing out the other poster made an inflammatory factual claim that is obviously false but you won’t do shit about it.
Second, you stated it would be reasonable to mod if the other poster claimed ICE was killing a bunch of people. Well, if I made that claim and then said “when I use the word kill, I mean arrest” you would rightfully see that as fucking bullshit.
Here, there is settled definition of the word kidnap. You have google. Read it. It is the unlawful taking of a person. There is zero evidence ICE is routinely kidnapping people. The other poster made a factually absurd claim with zero evidence and your defense of it is “the other poster gets to define commonly used words to mean something opposite to their common usage without saying he or her are doing such a thing.”
That would be deadly to the site. It is principled to argue against it.
Buddy, I wish I could grant myself as much latitude as I grant you.
Yes, you did. You do not insist on this scrupulous adherence to legal definitions for arguments you agree with. You want him modded because he annoys you and makes arguments that anger you.
That's correct. We won't do shit about someone saying something that may or may not be factual.
The factual nature of the claim is the point you should be arguing. We do not adjudicate truth values of claims made by posters.
Yes, because that's a specious, inapplicable comparison. Someone who uses "kidnap" referring to arrests they consider to be immoral and illegitimate (but are legal under the law) may be legally inaccurate but everyone understands what the meaning and intent is, and if you think "That's stupid, that's not kidnapping!" you are allowed to rebut with that. But you don't want to rebut, you just want us to tell him he's not allowed to use words in a way that grinds your gears. No, we will not do that.
You are pretending (I use that word intentionally) that it's the same thing as saying "kill" to mean "arrest." But doing that would be legitimately confusing. No one would understand you actually meant "arrest." When @LiberalRetvrn says "Kidnapping" you know exactly what he means. You are not confused, and he is not trying to confuse you. You disagree with how he's using the term. Fine.
Now let it go, you have nothing else to say on this that will be anything other than (more) annoying.
You aren’t understanding the argument but I will drop it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link