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 -
By the reasoning in the first part of your post, that shouldn't matter at all. The Twitter thread had no effect on him because since he posted under his real name, people could have gone to a data broker, found his employer, and harassed him regardless of whether the Twitter thread existed or not.
The reason that it did matter is that human beings don't behave the way you describe. A thread on social media is a coordination point to harass a person, even if the information is already available from a data broker or anywhere else.
Scott's whole point was that even though the information was public, spreading it still enables harassment that wouldn't have existed without it being spread. You seem to recognize that this is true for Scott's example, but you don't seem willing to generalize it. Kiwi Farms and that Twitter thread are in basically the same situation. Just like that guy could have his chances at employment ruined (even though Twitter only spread information that existed anyway), people whose information is signal-boosted by Kiwi Farms have a much greater chance to be harassed (even though Kiwi Farms only spreads information that existed anyway).
That's the autistic answer. People routinely act in ways which can be predicted, but do not follow from logical deductions. You need to be able to recognize them.
I only agree with Scott's example because the signal booster basically said "let's ruin his chances at employment indefinitely." Again, that's a-logging behaviour. If she had just said "this man is racist," I wouldn't find that objectionable (besides that I disagree on the object level of racism being an issue). Obviously, if someone with a huge following tells her audience to contact his employer, they will probably go and contact his employer and harass them.
I don't agree that criticising someone, regardless of the way you frame it, especially when you have explicit disclaimers against harassment as we do on the Kiwi Farms, is somehow enabling or promoting harassment. That principle seems to imply that no one is allowed to criticise anyone for any reason, lest the criticism become a coordination point for harassment.
Scott's point was that just because the information was available anyway doesn't mean that spreading it doesn't cause harm. This point does not depend on anyone explicitly saying they are going to cause harm. It's about refuting the argument "oh, the information is available already". It's true that in this specific example someone said they were going to cause harm, but Scott's point is more general than that.
Explicit disclaimers are things you put in when you need to cover your ass. The reason the Twitter doxing didn't include explicit disclaimers is that anti-racism social justice has such status that nobody is going to go after them no matter what they do, so they didn't need to cover their ass. Kiwi farms doesn't have this status, and people there need to cover their ass.
If Kiwi Farms posters actually didn't want to cause harm, they wouldn't signal-boost information that can be used to harm. Their actions would be consistent with not wanting to cause harm, not their disclaimers.
Someone can be criticised without mentioning their real name, address, or employer, aside from edge cases that apply to almost nobody attacked by Kiwi Farms.
I'm still confused. As I understand it, the Reason columnist didn't publish the alleged racist's address or employer, and only posted his name insofar as he was publicly posting under his name. If that's the case, does that mean that there's no way to criticise him that doesn't involve doxing, just because he posted under his real name? So it's fine to criticise pseudonymous people, but not people posting under their real names? Or is the problem that you have a large audience? What's the threshold at which you can't reply to people without (being considered to be) inducing harassment towards them because it's signal boosting and signal boosting is doxing? Is it 100,000 followers? 50,000 followers? 10,000? Should the media be prohibited from including people's names in their articles because doing that means they're going to be doxed, and subsequently, harassed?
I can't think of any way to consistently follow this principle that doesn't result in a huge prohibition on innocuous speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link