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 -
People often have radically different takes, so radically different that they think "I cannot believe you actually think that, you are obviously lying." Or someone will say "So it's better to ?" and the indignant response is "I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU LIAR!"
None of this improves the discussion. In fact, it basically ends it. When you're calling each other liars, you're pretty much at the endpoint of the discussion. This is why I almost always mod people for calling someone else a liar. You are not a mindreader. People do usually actually believe the things they are saying. They may be ill-informed. They may be guilty of spurious reasoning. They may be arguing sloppily. And yeah, sometimes they might just be making up shit to win an argument. Not that I am saying any of that is specifically true here, but what I am saying is you'd better be on point when you call someone a liar.
I am not sure why this is the biggest scissor of the year (well, so far) but people need to chill the fuck out.
The person baselessly accused me in endorsing murder for the purposes of sending a political message. Nothing I wrote gave any reason to do that. I do not think that was an example of discussion that can be reasonably continued in that manner, and yes, if it comes to that, then maybe ending it is the best outcome. "Do you really love Hitler so much?" - is that a discussion that I need to strive to continue? I have my limits, and being falsely accused in endorsing state terrorism is one of them. I try, but I am but a weak man.
If it was a way to make some point, it was easy to say it in a way that does not put the words in my mouth, there are hundreds of way to argue the same point. Glassnoser chose to say "do you really support ICE killing people to send the message" - as if my support for that was an established fact and he is just couldn't believe I really sank this deep and gives me the last chance to step away from the abyss. He demonstrated a pattern of what appears to be quite frivolous handling of the facts over the whole discussion, but I'm fine with it as long as it does not turn to libel against me personally. And I think I am very well on point when I say accusing me of thinking "it's preferrable that ICE kills people to send the message that people should stop protesting them" is a bald-faced lie. I never said it's preferable and never said anything that can be considered by any reasonable reader as supporting that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link