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 -
Censoring journalists to prevent suicides is a fool's errand
In 2015, Scott published a post called "What Developmental Milestones Are You Missing?" He described a variety of cognitive-behavioural milestones that might seem innate but in fact have to be consciously learned, examples including "theory of mind" (the understanding that everyone's minds are distinct, and that just because you have access to a piece of information doesn't mean that another person does) and foreign languages (many young children take their native language to be the default, and people speaking foreign languages "really" know the e.g. Japanese word for a thing, but insist on converting them into their own special code before talking about them). He then moves into more controversial and potentially elitist examples of potential milestones, describing his reaction to a piece by Nathan Robinson, in which Robinson acknowledged it's hypocritical to criticise conversatives trying to get Fun Home removed from a college syllabus while also defending students' boycotting a screening of the film American Sniper:
I would like to propose another possible developmental milestone that some have reached and others haven't: the complete inability to generalise a proposed solution outside of the narrow specifics of the problem it's intended to solve.
Following Nathan Cofnas's exposé regarding Jason Arday's plagiarism and fabulism, and his subsequent suicide, many are pointing fingers at the media's handling of the case. The more charitable framing holds that Arday was "hounded" to his death by a racist, right-wing harassment campaign; the less charitable framing (furnished by none other than Ibram X. Kendi) claims that the way Arday's story was covered in the press amounts to a modern lynching. Even people who concede that the allegations against Arday were not baseless insist that the amount of coverage he received was massively disproportionate (an opinion I do not share). The good people over at Change.org have a legal solution in mind to prevent future Ardays:
3,642 people have signed the petition at the time of writing.
So, guys. Let's walk through this step by step.
How could such a law possibly be enforced? Imagine the UK government has a massive centralised database of every news article published in outlets domiciled within its borders, updated in real time, listing the primary subject of each one. As soon as the number of articles about a particular subject exceeds some threshold (e.g. 80 articles in 7 days), the UK government issues a presumptive gag order against all media outlets warning them not to publish any more articles on this subject until the articles-per-day metric has declined somewhat. Any article published after the threshold was exceeded will be issued a public order demanding the article be taken down. This petition is effectively demanding a nationwide digitised Stasi surveillance body employing dozens if not hundreds of Winston Smiths (not to mention an initial outlay of billions of pounds just to get the news article-crawling infrastructure up and running), all to prevent – I mean, how many people commit suicide in response to "excessive" media coverage every year? Aside from Arday, can you name a single British person meeting that description this year?
And needless to say, this legislation would be utterly pointless for any news story of international interest, as Arday's was. (Arday: "The New York Times and the Atlantic are calling me a plagiarist and a liar." His legal counsel: "True, but we made damn sure the readers of the Daily Record wouldn't hear about it!")
But even if there was some way to enforce such a laughable piece of legislation, it surely goes without saying that the primary beneficiary of it would be Donald Trump, who would see the number of UK articles criticising him drop precipitously. Hell, an even bigger beneficiary would be Boris Johnson, whose latest paternity scandal would be reduced to a footnote. It's even trivial to imagine how such a piece of legislation could be gamed. Nigel Farage gets wind that a scandal is going to break on Monday morning. He immediately springs into action, buying a regional newspaper with triple-digit circulation for pennies on the dollar, launching a website to go with it, and flooding that website with nothing but AI-generated articles about said scandal. Under Arday's Law, there's no way for the BBC, the Guardian or the Observer to cover the scandal: their hands are tied.
I know, I know: of the 3,000+ people who signed this petition, most surely have no expectation of any legislation being passed. Signing the petition is just an applause light, a way of saying "I feel sad that Jason Arday killed himself, and wish that he hadn't", with a fig leaf of having Called for Something to Be Done.
But I genuinely feel that some people (most likely including the person who created the petition) simply lack the imaginative capacity to generalise a hypothetical solution outside the narrow confines of the problem that prompted its proposal. During the 2010s, when conservatives were getting banned from social media left and right, a common smug refrain I heard from progressives was "Facebook is a private company, they can do what they want". I continually pleaded with these people to understand: it's in everyone's best interests for rules to be written in an ideologically neutral fashion. You really do not want to set a precedent that social media companies can ban anyone they disagree with and they have no recourse. Every company undergoes ideological drift, whether slowly or all at once: the fact that Facebook moderators share your worldview now is no guarantee that they will a year from now. "They're a private company, they can do what they want" will come back to bite you in the ass when some billionaire who doesn't share the progressive worldview buys a social media network and moulds it in his own image.
And then a billionaire who didn't share the progressive worldview bought a social media network and moulded it in his own image. There was much gnashing of teeth and rending of hair. What could I say other than "I told you so"?
As someone with high imaginative capacity, what's your vision for blocking 'private companies from doing what they want?' How do you thread the needle between not banning/algorithmically deprioritizing people for supporting Trump (sounds good), QAnon, holocaust denial (uh...), kiddie porn? I grant that it's probably feasible to separate out kiddie porn, actual terrorists and criminals from the rest, but you're left with a broad spectrum of shit that most normies just don't want to deal with.
Even themotte has to crack down on holocaust denial, HBD and other topics from time to time. And you're catering to a fairly niche and homogenous population that hasn't managed to muster significant disagreement on a culture war issue outside of the Russo-Ukraine/Iran wars in the last 5 years.
If you want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine on steroids for social media I'm on board, but I doubt most of the people complaining in the 2010s want to see their Fox News talk shows or facebook slop nuked by the FCC of a democratic admin.
Sigh. You're baiting me, aren't you?
No, we've never "cracked down" on topics *. We've cracked down on obsessive single-issue posters and people turning their hobby horses into culture-warring and consensus-building. We've never forbidden Holocaust denial or HBD posting or even pedo-posting from the guys who want to abolish the age of consent.
You give a leeway for it for sure but my last ban was for posting a harmless visual novel top post. You have banned me too much under the wildcard rule which really just means per your discretion you don't like my posts. Obviously a big chunk of that is going to be the ideological substance therein. I won't deny that you do give voice to the people you mention, but I also won't deny it's only for a limited time. I think it's impossible to become a true forum regular while also being one of the types of posters you mention, just because sooner or later you will give a huge ban for posting a top level post that isn't even about one of the no-no topics. And that huge ban would obviously not be given to a regular.
This is going to land badly coming from a stranger on the internet but as far as I can see it's because you combine very strongly-held opinions that you don't seem to be able to examine along with an immense self-regard and a persecution complex that becomes self-fulfilling. You have views (and so do I) that the mods don't like but you don't seem to be able to debate them, you just assert them harder.
When cross post discussion tends to converge into a debate, mods tend to crack down on them because of the inherent combative nature of beating up on the beliefs of the other side. You could argue there are ways to be tactful without being aggressive, but not really, and that involves a lot of personal taste. TM is more of a serious discussion forum in that regard but I’ve never thought of it as a debate forum. Debate is blood sports.
More options
Context Copy link
Actually, it's fine. We're both anonymous, obviously I'm not trying to network on this account so I don't need to save face.
Where at? Last time I got banned for posting about Doki Doki Literature Club, not for debating wrongly. I got banned in the middle of a «debate» with a guy who was wrong about marriage statistics, but he wasn't citing anything. I ended up not citing anything because I was lazy, but I didn't assert harder, I referred to the correct statistics. I almost came back with a top level write up on it but I figured amadan would ban me for that and it doesn't matter because it won't change the type of mind that got to this point anyway. I got banned for not citing sources in response to a guy that was being rude and also wasn't citing sources. If I recall correctly I think he may of lazily linked to the European marriage pattern article but not much more. I told him correctly that that started only in the last 400 years and even then was only in some classes of a small corner of Europe, not all of Europe. To me, asserting harder would be just repeating my previous claims.
I can't think of any other example close to this. And even there I was being held to a higher standard than the other poster because of the side I was arguing on, which is unfair and is what I'm talking about. If you want to claim Europeans never married teenagers, you can be snide and dismissive and link at most to a flawed wikipedia article. If you want to claim otherwise with the same level of sophistication and attitude you get banned and then told you're not a good debater. Not fair.
EDIT: I found the comment. I misremembered how many sources we exchanged. Neither of us cited any. Only I was banned for this behavior. I must have been remembering the PM I almost sent to amadan before deleting it upon realizing that it would be pointless.
I was not asserting my views harder, rather I was objecting to specific claims made in response to my views. I objected without evidence because of Hitchens's maxim.
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