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 -
This is an example of an AI-generated PR with an AI-generated PR description I would instantly recognize as LLM-generated. It's totally fine. Yes, it's obvious that it was not written by the engineer and that's honestly what sets off the uppity engineers who complain about "AI Slop" that majority of the time. They can just tell it was written by AI so they complain and nitpick.
This pr description sucks, but you're just going to say that anything I say is just complaining and nitpicking.
So it seems we're at an impasse here.
Just egotistical coping if you think this PR description sucks. Like the Reddit artists who will never admit anything made by LLM is good when they know it was made by an LLM. You know it was written by AI so you are anchored on it sucking. Thanks though for demonstrating the exact mindset I was describing in my initial post.
This was reported and had a consensus-vote of "bad," but while we would prefer you and @phailyoor not get into antagonistic slap fights like this, I don't see it as really crossing the line.
Fwiw, you are right and @phailyoor is wrong.
And I feel like I have to second the person who said you should get some kind of recognition for actually getting into an argument where Jews weren't mentioned once.
I find it disappointing that you're directly taking a side in a thread within a mod post. Or at least even though you aren't posting with red text, you're posting with mod-only information a moderation decision and understanding of the rules.
Mods are allowed to have opinions about the topic of a thread and "take a side" on it.
While I don't care to litigate what does and does not count as a "mod post," there is also no requirement that we are to be dispassionately neutral while making observations as mods. A lot of people need to let go of the idea that we are customer service bots.
Since nobody is getting modded, your objection reads as petulant.
Whatever you say, you make the rules here. But it certainly has the appearance of a situation where you mod the people you disagree with and don't mod the people you agree with, whether or not this is true in this particular case.
If you seriously believe I didn't mod SecureSignals because I happen to agree with him about LLMs, and otherwise would have, I don't know what to say to you - you've been here too long for me to believe you actually believe that.
Well, phailyoor said that it had the appearance of such a situation, not that this was actually the case - I think the idea is that mods should avoid even the impression of impropriety, and thus, should remain neutral in "mod posts" even when their reason for modding someone in this particular case is clearly unrelated to any personal disagreement, so that it never looks as though they're modding someone for disagreeing with them. This doesn't seem crazy to me in principle. Although you guys get accused of bias so frequently anyway that I'm not sure officially adopting such niceties would move the needle in terms of public perception.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link