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 -
It's always been a problem here that things get voted up if they are long and grammatically correct. Not enough people notice the subtle signs of problems to vote those posts down. It's even better if you include buzzwords like "steelman" (unless you're a completely new poster, in which case mottizens will notice that you're using terms you shouldn't be familiar with). Of course, posters respond to this incentive and create better trolls.
It's possible to look at the post and say "wait a minute, people have made arguments here that he's shown no sign that he's even read, despite claiming that he knows what 'the forum's' case is." Or to notice claims being made without evidence (really, you can just assume that agents are poorly trained?) And if you wait a little while it's also possible to notice that he made the post, but he doesn't seem to be interested in engaging with the people responding to it. (That is a dead giveaway.) But not enough voters will do that.
Actually, Jiro, you are a perfect example of terrible voting and reporting patterns. There are few long-timers on the Motte with a worse history of bad faith posting, bad faith reporting, and generally taking a reflexive conflict theory approach to any post. "If it supports my tribe, it is good. If it advocates for any member of my outgroup, it is bad and should not exist."
You are of course allowed to upvote or downvote a post for any reason you like. We would prefer people actually vote according to the quality of the argument and whether it contributes anything interesting or new to the discussion (even if you disagree with the post!), rather than using it as an Agree/Disagree button, but most people do the latter. We would really prefer people not use the Report button to call the mods' attention to posts, presumably with the intent that we should warn or ban someone, because you don't like their opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link