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 -
No. I was talking about you and your suggestions. Some people have made valid suggestions, some of which have, in fact, been implemented, some of which were acknowledged as good suggestions but were not implemented for various pragmatic reasons.
Nobody needs anything here. This isn't a business, and we're not your employees. We do want to attract and keep members because we all believe in the purpose of the Motte, but that doesn't mean that every individual member gets what they want or that all demands are legitimate.
My suggestions (the primary one anyway being) to bring back a moderate variation of something originally implemented by you (that is, the mods)? So you were wanting to wage unrestrained culture war?
You know, if you're not just full of shit as usual and cavalierly breaking your own rules, then please, as your own rules state, provide proof (we'll ignore the proactive part since that ship has sailed already) in proportion to your very inflammatory claim that my suggestions are primarily directed towards desiring the waging of unrestrained (a heavy adjective explicitly indicating absolutely zero restraint whatsoever, keep in mind, which would be a weakman as is also against your own rules if, even if you can nitpick my suggestions, you can hardly find grounds to claim that I'm advocating for any sort of free-for-all, for turning this place into Kiwi Farms with less restrictions, which I'm obviously not) culture war.
Go on: quote me. Except you can't, because again I said nothing like that nor even in its vein, even if you can make a credible claim that my suggestions might increase culture warring here a bit or even to some degree (but that's a trade-off implicit in all moderation matters of this kind; this version of The Motte has more culture warring than a hypothetical one with even stricter rules would and yet I doubt you would take that hypothetical version's moderators accusing you of wanting to allow "unrestrained culture war" seriously, same as me being willing to tweak this axis is completely legitimate and not automatically advocating for unrestrained anything).
So, as usual, you could have communicated like an adult (you know, being charitable like your rules state) and said "I disagree with your suggestions because X, Y, and Z." but instead you had to immediately resort to the most arrogant and dismissive weakmen/strawmen possible. (It's like how Barry Goldwater's politics couldn't simply be criticized on their merits; he had to be declared insane and accused of trying to destroy the whole world. This is how you and the rest of the mods so frequently communicate with any critics.) And this is why you persistently end up looking like a petty fool and again just prove my criticisms correct (and also why they weren't made more politely/hesitantly in the first place, if you're going to try to pull a "No u!" on any of the above).
Seriously, if you mailed your Senator or something that you wanted the penalty for a particular crime reduced or a particular law repealed and he accused you in response of wanting complete unrestrained anarchy, would you not think he's a bit unhinged or at least hypersensitive? Have some awareness. (And yes for the record I am well aware that my professed political leanings make me come off as "unhinged" as well to many, but perhaps that makes it even more worthwhile that, other than you, nobody here, including those opposed to everything I stand for, has accused me of trying to "wage unrestrained culture war". I'm not trying to be an authority figure here either.)
If you think I'm speaking only for myself, then you aren't listening. Maybe not everyone agrees with every exact specific I propose, but the sentiment is reasonably widespread.
Or better yet, let me imitate one of your redname posts, as maybe that will make you understand:
Don't do this. Way too "Boo outgroup"-y and uncharitable. Demodded for one day due to prior history pending user discussion.
You want lighter modding in general? We'll take it under advisement.
Note that for all your belligerence and being one of the most frequently reported posters, you have been very lightly modded yourself.
I don't want the modding to go back to what drove away a significant number of people on Reddit. (And yes, it did drive people away. The weekly threads on CWR were up to 500 comments or more each. They've now been below 100 for a while. If you don't trust me, then surely the hard metric that the preferred use of your alternative represents should mean something at least. If you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that I'm actually saying you've been doing more right lately on balance, just in the form of warning you not to screw that up.)
Again, an accusation pretty much unique to you. Wonder why?
I guess I must not be waging "unrestrained culture war" then. Shocking. It's almost as if, again, your accusation was wholly unnecessary, uncharitable, antagonistic, inflammatory (and belligerent itself) and yet unsupported by any evidence (seeing as you've failed to provide any), and consequently an example of the poor communication people complain about. Do I believe you're going to fix that and not casually throw out such one-liners in the future that a user could easily get modded over? Absolutely not, because you never have. And that's why I made my original claim that all such productive suggestions are ignored. People aren't just pulling these ideas out of a hat.
Thanks for confirming for me that I'm one of the most reported posters here though (which I had already guessed, but it's nice to have official confirmation). (And yet my posts now on this subject are more upvoted while one of yours is at -2. So if I'm really that controversial and disliked here, then surely I must really have a good point in this case to be getting support, right?) It satisfies me greatly that my opposition has to try to resort to "deplatforming" me because they do not feel confident in rhetorically engaging with me. Truly pedofascism as much as it is the ideology of taboo in this fallen age (which is nearly a universal agreement, just with some disagreement on what's fallen about it) seems to me to be also continuously revealing itself further as a difficult to challenge ideology of truth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link