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 -
I was previously modded for reacting with excessive heat.
When georgioz says "FUCK YOU", and I overlook it with nothing more than an "excuse me", I'm clearly not doing the same kind of reactivity as you've previously called out. I'm demonstrating a pretty significant level of restraint and non-reactivity.
(Also, "ad hominem"? I was condescending, but I didn't substitute insult for argument.)
No, I'm not. I am criticising the kind of moderation policy that leads to this outcome. People are absolutely going to compare bans, and it's unreasonable to just declare that it's some kind of fallacy to do so.
No, you know exactly what I'm saying: these bans are absurd and unjust, relative to each other. Declaring the two incommensurable doesn't retroactively change what I'm saying.
Reputation should only go so far. If someone can scream "FUCK YOU" at me, and tell me I'm simple and stupid and illiterate, it's a crappy moderation policy that gives me the same punishment for not being an unlimited punching bag.
Well yes, that too!
I agree that you showed some restraint. But you still wrote a rule-breaking post, and that's what counted against you here.
Ad hominem literally translates "to the man." Its use here identifies your excessive focus on georgioz and his characteristics, to the detriment of your engagement with the substance of your argument. When we talk about ad hominem in the context of moderation, it is not an academic critique of your grasp of informal reasoning, but rather a suggestion that you should spend less time casting aspersions on your interlocutor and more time addressing the substance of your discussion.
(Fun fact: I am a philosophy professor. I make my living, in part, teaching both formal and informal reasoning!)
I see. Well, it's an unforced error to insist on things that "I know" when I have not told you that I know them; as a rule, I am not hiding the ball on that. I can be mistaken. We can disagree. But I'm not pretending, and now you're making the same mistake with me as you made with georgioz.
But now that you've spelled it out more clearly, okay! You don't like the way we moderate based in part on reputation, as it sometimes leads to results that offend your sense of fair play. Your complaint has been noted. In hopes of managing your expectations: so far, the moderation team does not agree with your position on the matter, and has no plans to adjust our moderation approach in response to your complaints at this time.
No, this isn't what I said. I absolutely think reputation should be a factor. I'm suggesting that in this case, it's being used excessively.
That's my point! My comments were full of addressing the substance of the discussion.
I'm fairly sure you don't actually know that I had an excessive focus on georgioz and his characteristics. I suspect you're assuming it from a light skim of the conversation, without really reading what I was saying in detail.
Which is reasonable! I know that reading through the comments in detail is a massive chore for mods. I don't expect you to do it. But now you're telling me that I was fixated on georgioz, and spending lots of time throwing insults and aspersions at him, and that's not true.
Fair enough; I retract that. I felt it was reasonable that you would've understood that my complaint was the relative length of the bans -- otherwise I don't see why you'd bring up their supposed incommensurability -- but if you're telling me that wasn't clear, I accept that.
Sure. At the risk of making another unforced error: I strongly doubt you're saying this to manage my expectations. I think you're doing a little snarky put-down.
And that's fine! It's even kind of funny; from your perspective, I am being a pain. But we could maybe be a little more consistent on whether being condescending is against the rules or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link