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 -
The mods just recently did that too. Boner jokes not allowed on the Fun thread because they're too serious, they don't qualify as fun, or a joke, so you have to keep in in the CW thread ... you can debate theology in the «small question» thread though.
Anyway, some jokes.
A man walks into a forum and asks for a small question. The forum responds, «does God exist, and if so does He love us, and if so, did He die on the cross, or did He speak to that Arab?»
Another man goes to the forum on joke night and asks for a joke. A user says, «What bulges when a 17 year old boy gets to dance with with a hot coed in gym class? His eyes, of course!», but the mods throw the user out the door and comedy night became tragedy night.
I think you're putting words in the mods' mouths. From the linked comment, I can't see anything even resembling the sentiment "jokes about erections literally do not qualify as jokes".
He said
Therefore jokes about sex and sexuality are not fun, therefore not funny, therefore do not count as jokes.
If you want to shut down your reasoning faculties and be obnoxiously literal, 2 can play at that, @EverythingIsFine did not say your joke was not a joke. He said it was a joke lacking the qualities to be funny.
I think you're putting words in @EverythingIsFine 's mouth. From the linked comment, I can't see anything even resembling the sentiment «jokes about beauty sleep literally do not qualify as jokes.» He said you joke was not funny (a sentiment I endorse. What did it even mean?)
The quote above doesn't say sex jokes aren't funny. It says sex jokes are CW material and belong in the CW material thread, even if they're funny.
Suppose the mod thought they are funny. Then he would see they belong in the fun thread, which is where fun and funny things go.
It is not sufficient for a topic to be CW adjacent. We all know full well boners are not CW material because the CW thread has never had a boner thread. It has gender war threads. His joke was not even about CW sex material. Meanwhile, in the fun thread, a litany of posts about topics like Trump and Anthropic. Oh, that's not CW?
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
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