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 -
Your objection seems to be that people are allowed to say things you don't like.
We give a lot of leeway, but not infinite leeway. People can say they don't like Jews or they think ZOG rules the world. People can be dismissive about someone being killed.
"Lol glad he's dead" would probably have gotten a ban,. but expressing an opinion like "This is not a big deal" would not.
We try to be consistent and principled. We don't claim to be perfect.
Is this not the fundamental nature of all objections? If I liked something (or otherwise thought it was a good thing) I wouldn't be objecting to it would I? I feel like the reasoning behind my objections warrant more consideration than you are currently giving it.
To moderation? No, half of it is "People are allowed to say things I don't like" and half of it is "You won't allow me to say anything I like."
I am sure you do feel like your objections are legitimate and completely unlike the objections of everyone else we have to brush off because we won't moderate to their precise specifications (i.e., "allow speech I like and disallow speech I don't like").
...And I am sure you feel completely justified in dismissing my objections out of hand. Please try to understand that I am trying to help here. If you genuinely want this place to be a "place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases" you ought to be conscious of what I am trying to tell you. Again...
What do you propose?
I don't have any specific action items at this time, but again I am trying to avoid publicly naming names. What I am trying to do is get you to understand that users like @FiveHourMarathon are not just pulling their conclusions out of their ass the way you seem to have implied and as such you should be engaging with them, rather than snidely dismissing them.
I'm not asking for names, but if your objection is "I have a list of names of users I think get away with saying things other users cannot, " yes, I am going to dismiss your objections. If your objection is "I think people are allowed to say things about some groups of people that they cannot say about other groups," I am going to dismiss your objections. We've heard it, we've heard it many times, and whenever I make the mistake of asking for specifics, specific is what I get - not any kind of systematic bias, but some thread or poster in particular that grinds the complainer's gears.
You've already made multiple, objectively false claims about past discourse here. When I asked you "Where are all the people who were dehumanizing Charlie Kirk on the Motte?" you tell me that's not the point. The point is you "perceive " something something. Well, okay then. What are we supposed to do about that?
We are obviously capable of entertaining the possibility that we are biased or make bad calls sometimes. But I would require a very high level of evidence to be convinced of the very broad accusation you are making. Otherwise, yes, I dismiss it as "I would like moderation to be fine-tuned to my precise preferences."
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