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 -
I can agree, but I think it depends on the specifics. I brought up Sanctioned Suicide because I think not naming the forum made no difference whatsoever in terms of the number of suicidal people who now know that it exists. Not just "it was harder to find out what site it was," I think it made zero difference and the level of difficulty was the same as if he had just named it outright.
Besides that, I'm hesitant to agree with your principle in all cases because it seems quite easy to shift blame from one party to another party who it does not make sense to hold accountable. One of your examples was "I didn't intend for my cryptocurrency to be used for money laundering" and, well, that reminds me of GrapheneOS.
A while back, European governments verbally attacked GrapheneOS (and even Pixel phones, which is the only way to run it*) as an enabler of pedophiles, because the police found it effectively impossible to break the security features of GrapheneOS. Under your set of ethics, GrapheneOS is responsible for the abuse of their system by pedophiles. In fact the argument is stronger because while pedophiles are highly motivated, they are unlikely to be able to code the security features on their own. But I don't agree. First, because there is no feasible way for GrapheneOS to prevent pedophiles from using their system without also harming everyone else, since any system that supposedly does so will inherently weaken the security of GrapheneOS. If police can break in, so can hackers. Second, because it's just not their responsibility!
(I'm not saying service providers, intermediaries, developers etc. can never be morally responsible for abuse committed by others. For example, if you're a platform like Discord or Roblox, you are enabling pedophilia the minute you receive a credible report of someone being a pedophile and fail to ban them. The difference here is the ability to ban specific people without affecting innocents, and having knowledge of someone being a pedophile.)
*There is a Motorola model in development, but it hasn't come out yet.
Well, yes, this was a given. My point was that naming the forum would harm others, namely, suicidal people who (the theory goes) would not have committed suicide otherwise.
It depends on what you mean by "responsible". I certainly think that when determining whether GrapheneOS is a good or bad thing, you need to consider and weigh the fact that it makes things easier for pedophiles, even if you ultimately decide that the good it does is greater.
Which is the same basic thing: in deciding whether it's good to name the forum, you need to consider and weigh that it makes suicide easier. You should not say "well, people could have committed suicide even if I didn't make it easy, so I can just ignore that completely".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link