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 -
It is really not difficult to find examples of top-level posts in the CW thread which mention erections:
GONE SEXUALgone wrong in a hospital bathroomNone of these contain boner jokes, or are about boners. They are about other topics, often sexual, and make some kind of mention of erections or a synonym in the course of the exposition. That's completely different.
You said:
You did not claim that there has never been a boner joke top-level post in the CW . You said that there has never been a boner top-level post. I provided you with several examples of top-level posts which mention erections prominently.
You can't move the goalposts like this then complain about people "gaslighting" you.
To be fair, first, I demonstrated why I thought you had selectively reasoned. You make an inference when it comes to EverythingIsFine, but refuse to make a similar inference in another scenario where you probably don't like the implications of the inference as much, since based on your comment history I am 95% certain you support the mod decision I linked to. Instead of just throwing labels at you, I demonstrated it and left it to the reader to think of labels. If my demonstration was unconvincing to a reader, then they won't think of any. Then you replied with a loaded command and a loaded statement, saying I was hostile and telling me to relax, which I was relaxed and was not hostile, so I replied with my evaluation that I thought your original comment was gaslighting, because you had cherry picked when and where to use textual inference and where to be harshly literal in a way I felt was arbitrary, while denying that it was possible to see anything even close to my inference. That goes beyond disagreeing with my inference rationally and to gaslighting territory, imo, because it implies I am crazy or am completely making stuff up, as opposed to making some inference that is 40-60% likely to be true where you come down on the other side. When you followed up with the derogatory relax comment, I had nothing left but to point out what I thought you were doing directly, because the explicitly derogatory loaded nature of your followup raised my posterior to the level where I was quite certain.
More options
Context Copy link
If you read the context you will see I am talking about boner jokes/boners as a topic. Yes, that is not explicit in what I wrote, it's implicit, because I was writing short-hand. It's a category error to think you can rules-lawyer what I wrote, to me. I am the final arbiter of what I meant. If my writing was too vague for you to understand properly, sorry, that is my fault I guess, but I still meant what I meant.
So, when I said there has never been a boner thread, I did not mean there has never been a post that made at least a mention of erections. You can say that's not 100% obvious when I wrote it, but I am the final arbiter of what I meant. I think it's pretty obvious though if you read the whole exchange; most writing on the motte is not 100% explicit.
So the goalposts did not move. You misunderstood what I wrote. Might be my fault, maybe. I am not sure how reasonable it is to expect people to get contextual meanings and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link