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 -
Nothing unsportmanslike about keeping your dribble while someone attempts a reach-in.
I’ve had private mode on the majority of time I’ve been registered here; never turned it off after turning it on initially. If one can make claims about my comment history without the most convenient way to “systematically look through” it, one can back it up too likewise.
Come to think of it, so far the greatest unsportsmanlike conduct I’ve seen in this chain is your drive-by attempt at shaming and moving the goalposts from “exact same comment every single time regardless of the subject matter” to “pattern in your posts,” like a spectator heckling from the stands or a journalist looking to shit-stir while feigning indifference.
It's much easier to remember posts than the URLs of those posts, and theMotte doesn't allow searching for multi-word quotes or for filtering a search by a private-mode user.
TBQH, most of my posts are on subthreads that showed up on the volunteer page; browsing theMotte is tedious. In this case, @Quantumfreakonomics' post got reported.
would be a
but the latter is notably shorter and I'm habitually concise.
I tried to check whether his accusation was hyperbolic, as it was relevant to rating his post and to whether I ought to chide him for it (example of me crawling up someone's arse over hyperbole within the last few days, in case you think I'm fabricating). But I hit your privacy block, and I'm not about to chide someone for hyperbole until I'm sure it is hyperbole (hypercorrection is a pet peeve of mine). And, well, hitting that block itself seemed extremely-relevant to your challenge, so here we are.
Part of my intent was to give you the opportunity to give QF a fair attempt, as I figured you may have had it on and forgotten about it. Another part of it was, admittedly, to ensure that anybody reading did not overupdate on QF being unable to provide evidence under present conditions.
Oh, how noble of you, to give me such a most generous opportunity.
Again, the initial claim was made under present conditions—the same ones that have existed for years—so inability to follow-up on that claim under the same past and present conditions is no excuse. The status quo is already the fair attempt.
For a claim such as “exact same comment every single time regardless of the subject matter,” it only takes one counterexample to dismantle. Who knows, there may even exist multiple counterexamples just in this week’s or last week’s CWR or FF threads. Shouldn’t be hard to find given the apparent relative ease by which to remember posts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link