Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
META: Is it easier or harder to secure a Quality Contribution than it used to be?
I am a pathologically insecure person whose thirst for validation is omnipresent and unquenchable. It was for this reason that I shared the links to every Quality Contribution Roundup in the year to date with ChatGPT and asked it to build a leaderboard of Quality Contributions by user. Suffice it to say that it gave me the answer I was looking for.
Without showing the breakdown by user, here is a monthly breakdown of how many Quality Contributions there have been so far this year:
But I was curious, and asked it to do the same for all of last year's roundups:
As you can see, there has been a substantial drop in the volume of Quality Contributions year-on-year. The monthly average for 2025 was 38 AAQCs, which has fallen to 32 this year. 2025 saw five months with forty Quality Contributions or more, which hasn't happened even once so far this year. Similarly, last year's floor was 30 quality contributions in a month, while this year's is 25 (granted, that month was the only month with less than 30).
What could be the cause of this? A few possible explanations come to mind.
*Based on eyeballing the total comments for the CWRs for August 31, September 7, September 14, September 21 and September 28. Obviously these threads contain some comments posted before or after September, but I'm too lazy to go digging through them to identify which comments were posted in what period. It's a good enough proxy metric, nothing more.
I think it's mostly the first thing - we have had a gradual but inevitable decline in activity (and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground), and thus in QCs.
Debate seems like it's dying here and I'm guessing the percent of posts that belong to «look what famous person did this week» is rising (we are 2/2 already this week [1] [2], look what Ilhan Omar did this weekend, look what happened to famous store chain today). The response to this is above average for weighty topics now, in 2018 I think there would have been at least 5 people willing to effort post back and forth on this topic until comments were hidden (the downvotes are disappointing but may have happened on reddit). I got one taker and he scurried off after half an exchange. It feels like it is literally impossible to have a real philosophical conversation on here now. I can't get anyone to directly defend why it's morally right for the group to vote on who to eat for dinner (that is, why a democratic state has the moral right to kill anyone) because nobody will debate at all and they leave before the web of «but it do be like that though» and «what about the roads / safety» is slashed through. This is true on every other topic. Probably all the people willing to put effort in on these topics are either gone or 80% gone in that they're here but their effort is ... gone. Turning 40 and having babies on top of the collapse of novelty will do that.
I would agree that debate on more abstract or esoteric topics is down. But part of this is a more piggybacking/tragedy of the commons problem. There are a bunch of old guards here that did a lot of the overposting on reddit, many of them have left, evaporative cooling. The ones that remain are often more culture war oriented than debate oriented. That means they make more culture war debate overposts. Nothing is stopping others from making more debate overposts other than interest. There was a comment (was it you??) about wanting to create a Sunday Singularity thread for AI discussions, putting effort into making that a thing, might drive more abstract debating or at least more less-binary culture war posting.
This is just life. It's already a niche hobby debating on the internet with totally random internet strangers. I imagine it is also a hobby that skews elder-mid millennial. Do we actually have that many zoomers or gen-alpha here? Older people have less time in their life to stay up debating shit.
I am scared to because I ate a ban for basically not posting about the current thing a few months ago. I think there have been other examples as well. So, the mods are not helping, they lean towards making it a politics gossip forum instead of a political philosophy forum. I was thinking to maybe start a Saturday thread for abstract topics since culture war seems to be identical to the news at this point.
If you are talking about the Doki Doki topic, I don't think this is a fair categorization. That wasn't some abstract topic, but more a target of niche current events.
Maybe, but it wasn't good precedent. If I post something abstract @Amadan will rush in to call it «hobbyhorsing.» Nevermind the fact that I post on a range of topics and the abstract post could be on any one of those. I guess I have 10 hobbyhorses. It's not a hobbyhorse when you're singularly obsessed with it, it's a hobbyhorse when a mod doesn't like the topic. See my previous comment on this topic.
No topics are banned. You're not being persecuted.
More options
Context Copy link
In theory, maybe you could ask Amadan to proof read before you post, explaining that you really don't want to catch a ban. It might be that your model of of the rules is unfortunately malformed or corrupted. If the mods want improvement, and I see no evidence that they don't, sometimes it takes more than negative reinforcement, but also some positive reinforcement.
If I try to shape the direction of the CW thread, I am pretty sure I will get banned, whether or not my posts are charitable or not. Charity is hardly ever the problem -- I did eat a ban for slurring Trump, which was fair, but the others I've eaten were pretty unfair. The way it works is, when you have a bunch of controversial opinions, you have to let the others talk down to you an extra amount or you will eat the inflammatory posting ban. You have to give the forum huge breaks from discussing the topics you like, or you eat the wildcard rule / hobbyhorsing ban, while people posting nonstop about the White House never get banned like that, even though they should if you assume all topics are equal. All topics are clearly not equal, that is how the actual rules work, if I took the sidebar literally I would already be banned right now because I would have made too many hobbyhorse top level posts already.
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