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 -
IMO we need something like the BLR back so people can drop interesting things without the expectation they write a whole essay about it to clarify their basic reaction of "I think this is bad.", "I think this is ridiculous.", "I think this is a good thing.", etc. or get the banhammer for booing the outgroup or whatever. I get the ideally that goal of this community is to solicit the essays but I would rather have a place that highlights 70% of recently interesting things with only 75% of them having extended commentary on them versus a place that highlights only 30% of recently interesting things with 95% of them having extended commentary on them, especially since multiple people in the comments will often pick up the extended commentary duty.
Personally, I'd rather hear about interesting new information concerning interracial rape rates (and, yes, not just because I'm racist against blacks, as I'd want to hear about it if it were in the opposite direction too) even if I'm not going to get the fair and balanced perspective on top about how it can be interpreted in some manner that is neutral for the raping demographic, larping as some future historian totally disconnected from present issues. Sure, I wouldn't want every post to be "Science CONFIRMS that BLACKS = RAPE" or it would just turn into heterodox /r/science or /r/politics but I think there needs to be some more intelligent way to balance this out (like multiple different feeds accomplishes).
And yes moderation communication here is also often terrible. But all productive suggestions in that area have been ignored from day one so oh well.
Though it's not nearly as bad as it was at times on Reddit, some mods here are definitely starting to get a bit too active and trigger-happy again (with modding this post probably not necessarily being the worst or even a bad example of it, but still). It seems to me when this place migrated from Reddit, they were very hands-off in its initial phase (which seems to me to be an implicit admission that the capricious and heavily-involved moderation they engaged in at times on Reddit would have strangled the baby in the cradle, which you might think would also make them rethink it in general but maybe not) and things were better than ever. Now they seem to be starting to believe that they have enough of a captive audience that they can begin to return to their old ways though. It's disappointing.
I get that not every post here is great but for the most part some random red-named post popping in occasionally going "No bad little boy don't do that!" (which is only a mildly satirically exaggerated version of how the mods here often chastise people) or throwing out random bans is about as effective as TSA security at the airport. It may occasionally find a knife, but it also misses a lot of knives, throws out a lot of non-knives or things that are maybe knife-shaped but probably not actually that dangerous, and in general annoys people and causes more contention than its benefits can justify. (Of course, this is describing the active behavior. The implicit background threat of moderation is certainly necessary, but that can be achieved while rarely if ever using it.)
False. We just don't take up the suggestions that people who want to wage unrestrained culture war would like us to implement.
It's fascinating that this is how you model our thinking. Though I'm not sure I believe you sincerely believe this.
We don't ban randomly, and banning bad actors is quite effective.
That you immediately imply that any possible suggestion that might have not been taken seriously enough by the mods here would only come from "people who want to wage unrestrained culture war" (the type of veiled insult pretty much all mods here almost always throw out in response to any suggestion that they may not be as open to suggestions as they claim, which I guess you don't seem to realize kind of proves the point), as if there is no possibility that the mods here could have ever dismissed a valid suggestion (I guess you're perfect oracles of what's a good suggestion or not, no mistakes ever?), is a great example of the terrible mod communication I was talking about. Thanks for proving my point with your arrogant and dismissive tone.
Anyway though I'm not going down this rabbit hole since I've seen where it leads: frustration and zero results for those who try to take the whole "moderation here is driven by user sentiment" stuff seriously (as you've proven by starting off the conversation with nothing but passive aggressive sneering).
I do sincerely believe it. The difference in moderation immediately going from Reddit to the new site was obvious. Maybe it's not something you implemented consciously but it sure happened.
Just keep in mind that with this new site you still need us more than we need you. An independent enterprise is always on shakier ground.
No? This place as a site definitely has a smaller network effect dominance than it did as a subreddit. And if it went down I have no doubt it would be replaced by something else nearly immediately, probably advertised via CWR and the SSC subreddit/forums (or maybe a new site for CWR itself).
The fact that the defenders of this place's mods can only ever argue by spewing bad faith bullshit like this speaks volumes.
The main suggestions I've seen about the moderation here in this subthread are that mod communications should be more professional, more detailed about their particular issues with any given post, and more standardized/less subjective. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with people demanding they be exempt from "the most minimal level of self control imaginable" or wanting to "wage unrestrained culture war" or whatever other insane strawmen you people constantly toss out because some have the audacity to think that occasionally popping in to type "This is not we're looking for here. Don't do this again." isn't actually God-tier moderation. (I'm not even saying terrible. It's not nearly as bad as it's been in the past or I wouldn't even be here. I just also think it's hardly the ideal sage wisdom of the rationalist masters either, despite the mods here seeming to be incredibly offended by any suggestion otherwise.)
Ironically enough if this site's rules were enforced consistently and comprehensively, the mod team and their defenders would be some of the most cited, warned, and banned for how they insist on behaving in response to even the mildest criticisms. I don't think I've ever once seen a single moderator here go "You have a point." or "You know what, you're right, and we'll work on that." in response to anything a user has ever suggested (unless maybe occasionally if it's stated in the mildest, most non-committal fashion while tickling the mods' balls the entire time) as opposed to immediately jumping into "Obviously you want the rules to change so you can wage the culture war and create anarchy in our perfect garden of neutrality!" shit.
I guess we users here must just be the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet then, since none of our suggestions are ever any good and we are all just trying to tear down the grand edifice of discursive order so we can go ape, except somehow there'd also be no site without our posts. We probably are dumb for putting up with it but that's how social dynamics go: the first "solution" tends to stick and becomes a Schelling point despite its many flaws and then you have dozens of cultists who feel like they have to defend it against all criticism no matter how trivial and no matter how bizarre and nonsensical their unhinged reactions to those criticisms are because it's the Schelling point. (And, yes, I know I'm free to leave. I in fact gladly will if things go back to how they were on Reddit. I'm bringing it up in the first place in the hopes that it doesn't.)
Even when Hlynka was finally removed after being allowed to go on a rampage of terrible mod abuse for ages while being defended by the leadership here, I still don't think there was ever any particular "mea culpa" posted about that. Was there? I sure didn't see it. It sure didn't happen quickly if it ever happened. (I went probably a year, maybe more, without even looking at the sub, so I may have missed it, but I bet it just never happened.) It was just brushed under the rug like it never happened without any acknowledgement that the critics were right, any attempt to give them any sort of restitution or reevaluate past bans, etc. If anything serious were run like that, there'd be heads on pikes in a week. (And of course the mods, particularly Zorba, will insist this place isn't that serious but then also get mad at you if you don't take it seriously enough when posting. It's serious when a user's post is too "Boo outgroup"-y or whatever catchphrase of the day they want to use to ding someone, but when they let a crazed cowboy run wild on the userbase for over a year then it's just a cute experimental community and you shouldn't take it that seriously.)
Anyway, I've wasted this much time responding to your shitty ad hominem post which could have been entirely replaced by a loud, vulgar sucking noise (yes that's ad hominem too but no worse than what you and Amadan are both guilty of so if I get a bad boy warning for this I expect to see one for you and him too), so you can't accuse me of not pretending you could possibly give me value in a conversation. Enjoy.
Nope. It has volume because of the network externality, same as reddit on the whole.
I don't know if "network darwinism" is the same term as "network externality". Network externality is "I'm here, because that's where everyone is", which hinders splitting and competition.
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