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 -
Maybe I'm being narcissistic but I feel like I may be at least half responsible. I blame the other half on @KMC and @FiveHourMarathon. No disrespect intended but I share the latter's perception that if @KMC's comment had been aimed at "Negroes", "Venezuelans", or "Trump-Voters" it likely would have gone un-reported and thus un-moderated.
What that means for the forum as a whole is it's own conversation.
You said this in modmail, and repeating it doesn't make it true. @KMC has been modded for saying similar things about "Negroes." People absolutely report posts that tee off on Trump voters, blacks, and other groups.
I can't even fathom your theory of mind that says we give special protection to Indians.
At this point, you're a broken wrong record.
Not "Indians" the "Ingroup".
Which, as @FiveHourMarathon observed in that same thread, is perfectly understandable, "We're always going to have a bias towards our friends."
So, your theory of mind is that I go extra-hard on anti-Indian comments because I am (kinda sorta in a distant online way) friends with @self_made_human?
Why do you think I don't go hard on anti-MAGA posts since I'm about equally friendly with @FCfromSSC, then?
I don't know how to penetrate such obtuseness. I'm just going to keep pointing out that you're wrong, and if you want to advocate for changes in moderation, telling us we're doing things we aren't is a demonstrably unsuccessful strategy.
I wish. I'd settle for you going easier on me in particular, but I will note that every time we've had a disagreement (or the one time you temp banned me before I became a mod), I thought you had a good point.
On a more general note, there is little need to demonstrate favoritism towards the mods here. They were chosen because they were considered a good fit for the community and have a record of the kind of engagement we're looking for (and of course because they're willing to devote the time and energy). It is little surprise that we're not the ones usually needing to be slapped with warnings or bans, and even when we do mess up, it's usually a temporary lapse that is addressed through internal channels. The overwhelming majority of the time we end up in a fight, it was provoked by someone less sympathetic.
This is easy to mistake for favoritism towards us and harsher punishment for those we dislike, but I do not think it's true. We usually recuse ourselves from weighing in on moderation decisions when we believe that our judgement is clouded because of personal antipathy, or even because us taking action will convey the impression of a vendetta.
@JeSuisCharlie isn't just accusing us of being biased towards each other, though. He's accusing us of giving special protection to Indians because of you.
Presumably the only reason we haven't banned the Joo-posters is that none of the mods are Jewish (afaik).
That is a claim I find even more confusing. I can kinda sorta understand the reasoning behind claims that we are biased against left/right wingers if I squint, not that I think those accusations have much merit either.
(The RW claim we extend affirmative action to Leftists, the LW claims we go easy on the Right because that is the Forum Consensus)
But Indians? Really? I have no idea where that's coming from, and I think your handling of KMC's previous warning was perfect, and that you would have done the same thing for any other ethnic group. I wouldn't have touched it (not that I had the opportunity to before you did, as far as I remember) because of the potential of coming across as having a conflict of interest.
(As I've said before, Zorba's moderati must be above reproach)
People write negative comments about Indians all the time. I have done my fair share of criticism, even though I also come to our defense when I feel that the criticism is unfair/factually incorrect. Usually, that amounts to politely reminding people that India is not sub-Saharan Africa, and that assuming similar levels of dysfunction or dirt is unwarranted. Can't say I've ever modded anyone for insulting us either, though I do recall you warning Hlynka for being blatantly racist against me years ago (an opinion shared by others in writing). If I can't get away with claiming that I am extremely non-partisan about my place of birth when I have multiple comments discussing its dysfunction (or acknowledging that claims of an average IQ in the low 80s have evidence), who can?
I genuinely consider my ethnicity to be mostly incidental trivia about me, at least when it comes to my most important opinions and beliefs. I can't really help being Indian, can I, but I am nothing like the modal Indian in India, or even the other lucky bastards who made it to the West.
Eh. People will always have grievances. Some more factually warranted than others. I feel like this one can be safely ignored, while I make a cursory wave in the direction of potential personal bias while denying actual bias.
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
If anything, the most "anti-Indian" poster we ever had on here (though I haven't seen him here for a few months) was that actually Indian castist guy who seemed to think that most of modern India's problems could be fixed by getting rid of special treatment for the lower castes and making Brahmins truly the top dogs again. I think his name was something like MrVanillaSky? Was certainly an interesting perspective to see. But I saw him get modded a couple times, he definitely didn't seem to get special treatment.
And when everyone dogpiled on self_made_human for using AI to slopify his posts I didn't see any mods rushing to rescue him even though he's both Indian and a mod himself.
We don't really have many active Indians who have mentioned they are Indian here. From memory, it's just me and @DirtyWaterHotDog, after Vanilla left (apologies to anyone who I've forgotten, if they exist).
Vanilla was an interesting character, there are plenty of right-wing leaning Hindu-nationalist casteists in India, though I have the good fortune of knowing very few of them. As painful as it is to admit, I think it's probably true that there exist significant disparities in IQ between castes in India. I'm far from upper caste, and just above the threshold where I'd be lower-caste and entitled to affirmative action.
Speaking of said AA: I loathe it with every fiber of my being. It deprived me of the opportunity to enroll in a better med school despite decent grades and exam results. I was entirely caste-blind my entire life until that point, because I was Westernized enough to simply not care (and my family were socially liberal). The immense resentment that developed afterwards is mostly gone, because I managed to escape to a place where caste had no bearing, where everyone's performance was judged on the grounds of the performance itself.
I understand why the upper castes are mad about things, even if I'm lower-middle caste (I lack a better word for it). This AA is ruinous in India, and many have fled to the West to get away from it, even if that wasn't my primary motivation. From a purely Bayesian perspective, these mostly upper caste Indians are probably right to think that the lower castes who benefit from quotas are dumber than them on average. Should they import their casteism and rage to a Western context? Probably not. I don't. But someone who got into an IIT on the basis of caste is not of the same quality as another candidate who didn't. It might be an inscrutable and impenetrable quibble to a white recruiter in SF, but Indians from India would know better.
I consider myself fortunate not to have to worry or particularly care about it anymore, and note that I would never have if it wasn't wielded against me or used for demagoguery and identity politics.
Neither did I. Amadan was one of the critics himself, and while I still advocate for my approach to LLM use, I took his dislike of it seriously. Far more than I would the average resident doing a drive-by. Negative feedback from someone I like and respect (despite his concerning takes on Reverend Insanity) means much more to me than anything thrown by the peanut gallery. I think his response, namely ignoring or skimming most of my posts, is a far more reasonable one than people calling for any LLM usage to be banned or slinging insults at me. I endorse the general principle, I agree that for many topics on this forum: if you don't like it, don't read it, instead of bitching about it.
(This has a limit. SS gets warned for joo-posting when he becomes one note. It is good for him that he tries to spice up his repertoire on occasion, though his true passion and calling still bleeds through.)
Hell, since the initial kerfuffle, I even ended up using LLMs less for editing purposes and stylistic purposes. My self-imposed standards include that if people are noticing and mentioning AI influence in my prose (regardless of their stance on it), then I've lost too much of my original voice and character. Or perhaps I took it even more seriously because people who appear intelligent and discriminate and who gave me positive feedback mentioned they noticed in passing. Even if they don't mind, I do. I like my voice, even if I think AI helps me in practical ways.
More options
Context Copy link
I've worked with many Indians in corporate America. I've even been sent to Hyderabad and Delhi a few times over the years. Its takes a while for Indian coworkers to open up to you about this stuff, if they ever do, but opinions in the same general neighborhood as this are incredibly common, though not necessarily the part about Brahmins being in control, the bits about special treatment of the scheduled castes seems universally unpopular amoung people who don't receive the treatment, and even some that did. Of note, Indians that work in corporate America in the US is a powerful filter on who you hear from.
The ones in Silicon Valley are the most notorious for it online, at the very least. I don't work in SF or in tech, or even happen to live in America, so I have no idea if it's actually common, but most other Indians not in India don't care very much. The 2nd gen ones hardly care at all.
I've stopped thinking about it entirely since I've left the country, though as my reply above will show, I haven't changed my actual views on the topic. It's good to get away with not caring, instead of it being a constant handicap or shackle around my ankles like in India.
More options
Context Copy link
I work with a ton of Indians at my day job (about 80% in Mumbai, 20% in the US) and I make a point of looking people's surnames up since it's a decent (if imperfect) indicator of caste. The more competent of my coworkers (though this is an obscenely low bar, they're almost all awful) definitely tend to have last names correlating with higher castes.
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