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 -
That's why the rule is, "...in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be."
Wrong. First, the rules do not require every expression of belief to be meticulously supported--see above. Second, even rulebreaking posts may not be modded for a litany of reasons, including "the mods never saw this" or "the user was already banned for something else that day" or "sometimes you just have to pick your battles" or...
This does matter, yes.
This is wrong. It's false. Every time. And yes, the anti-Semites in our userbase like to insist that we are especially protective of Jews, but the anti-Semites of the world always think that everyone is especially protective of Jews. Of course they're going to say that, because any time someone gets moderated for being a single-issue anti-Semite poster, they update their (trapped) priors on the mods being in the pocket of Big Jew, but every time someone doesn't get modded for being a single-issue anti-Semite poster, the anti-Semites do not update at all while the Wokists update their (trapped) priors on the mods being crypto-Nazis, or just regular Nazis. This pattern has been repeating for like a fucking decade and it doesn't matter how many times we explain it, a large portion of the userbase is absolutely, immovably convinced that the mods are pulling for $OUTGROUP.
You're all just wrong.
Look, I know you're doing the whole meta schtick here but don't post like this. It is not true that "everyone knows" probably anything, but setting aside anodyne facts, applying "everyone knows" to any CW claim is going to fall afoul of the rules, whether we moderate that particular instance or not. Just avoid the phrase! It's not hard! Maybe you think it's a bit of harmless hyperbole, and often it probably is, but we have a rule against this particular kind of rhetoric for good reasons: it's a way of waging the culture wars.
Depending on how they were expressed, yes.
Wrong again!
AI is like, barely a CW topic to my mind. It touches on CW stuff, no question, but you can post about AI in the SSC subreddit all you like, and CW is (nominally) banned there. See my first point about proportionality. You are still focused on the wrong things.
People do it all the time, actually. Usually it's something like "look, here are 20 different concrete instances of $OUTGROUP saying that they are going to exterminate me. I feel like 'I wish $OUTGROUP was dead' is a bad look, posits a costly and maybe impossible solution, and makes it difficult for me to have productive dialogue with any member of $OUTGROUP, but I didn't start it. Maybe on some level I would prefer a peaceful solution, but I'm not the one who refuses to consider peaceful solutions. This leaves me in a position where I support a policy of extermination against $OUTGROUP, even though I feel kind of sad about that."
This is not an easy standard to meet. The proportionality requirement when applied to "let's nuke the outgroup" is very high--of course! And I think you actually understand this--your last mod warning, almost a year ago, was tagged with a note suggesting the next ban should be permanent. Since then, you've accrued several AAQCs and no warnings at all. Clearly you understand the rules at least well enough, but you couldn't be arsed to follow them until it became clear that you had burned away the goodwill that was allowing you to continue posting.
Moderation is, I guess I would say, holistic, and ultimately all rules are subordinate to the Foundation:
We are not technicians applying mathematically precise measurements to content. We are more like gardeners. We are curating a community. We are not perfect at it. But neither are we doing quite what it is that you seem to be accusing us of, here.
Was it confusion, though? How do you know? Any time a post begins with "I hope I don't get banned for this" the first thing that goes through my mind is, "this poster is hoping to get banned for this, specifically to start shit with the mods over whatever axe it is they have to grind." Several responses in the thread were "It's not anti-Semitism, it's game theory!" To my eyes, that looks like someone who really, really wants to talk about Jews while maintaining deniability. You know--kind of like nuking Israel, but in secret.
It beggars belief. The whole thing is just too on the nose.
More options
Context Copy link