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 -
Sorry by "truthful" I don't mean "explicitly lying". I mean "omitting key context that a reasonable person would expect you to include if you actually cared about good discussion (and not just about booing the outgroup)".
The commenter I linked to decided that
accurately portrayed
To me this is a really obvious example of somebody going on a tirade about how bad their outgroup is. My main gripe (as somebody who disagrees with BLM) is that you have a less accurate understanding of what happened after reading his comment.
Could you argue that that comment makes this board a better place?
I think it's pretty clear mods are much more rigorous about enforcing things if there is some obvious flow chart they can appeal to if somebody questions their decision. "Less than 50 words --> low effort" -- who could argue with that?
Another good example is "consensus building" which should mean "don't imply we all agree with you" but instead means "don't use the phrase 'we all know'".
And so we have things like "Given Kamala's own exposure as a weak air-head" just stated matter-of-factly and in-passing, when any sane standards would require at least a context link.
The mods have (correctly) decided that allowing things like "We all know that Kamala is an air-head" is damaging to discussion, but when MelodicBerries simply assumes his reader agrees with him and that the claim needs no justification this is also building consensus. But it's not part of the mod flow chart "we all know" -> "building consensus", so it's completely kosher.
Basically no discussion board on the Internet actually asks its members to "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be" -- the onus is always on whomever disagrees with your claim to hold you to account. TheMotte and /r/slatestarcodex, according to their own rules, should be the exceptions. But I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually seen that rule enforced.
I think thats because that’s because the mods are human and enforcing it requires making difficult-to-defend decisions and that’s scary.
Look, you're not wrong that low-hanging fruit is easier to mod than long posts that require us to try parsing what someone is actually saying, about a topic we may not be at all familiar with, which is why we don't try to make judgment calls about how "honestly" someone is presenting the case. If something gets reported, we always look at it, but if it's a wall of text and someone is reporting it as "lying" or "uncharitable" or "boo outgroup," I will read through to see if anything is egregiously in violation of the rules, but I am not handing out Supreme Court judgments here.
That being said, I for one do not use any kind of mental "flow chart," and I do not worry a lot about whether someone might question my decision. (People question our decisions all the time. Some people even demand I "take it up with the other mods." Which, in most cases, I actually do, asking if anyone disagrees with my judgement.)
"We all know" is indeed a red flag that someone is trying to assume a nonexistent consensus, but it's not the only way to get flagged for consensus-building. If your point is that we mod by doing a Ctrl+F on certain phrases, no, not really.
What sort of context link would you like to support the assertion that Kamala Harris is an airhead? It's clearly an opinion. It's not a particular charitable opinion, but people are allowed to say "I think Kamala Harris is an airhead." Arguably, "Given" could be interpreted as "consensus building," but if I were to mod it on that basis, I really would be doing the sort of keywoard-based modding you're accusing us of. If you say "Trump is a venal, fascist clown," that's your opinion, and someone who likes Trump would very likely report you for it, but you don't have to post a link to support your opinion. If you say "We all know Trump is a venal, fascist clown" you'd get modded, not for using the magic no-no words "We all know" but because you are trying to imply everyone agrees with you and you are reinforcing a consensus opinion. Was @MelodicBerries doing that about Kamala Harris? Eh. I don't think so, but feel free to ask another mod what they think.
Then you aren't very good at counting, because we enforce that rule all the time (even though almost no one ever thinks that their claim was partisan or inflammatory or required evidence).
Either an insult is materially relevant to the argument, in which case it requires justification (and deserves a mod warning if one isn't given), or it is not relevant (in which case it deserves a mod warning for creating needless heat).
It's plain here that the point about Kamala that's actually relevant to the argument is that she has no hope of being the Democrat nominee. A context link that is appropriate is a link to a poll or a prediction market.
Instead MelodicBerries goes needlessly out of his way to call her an airhead. If this was relevant to the argument and supported by evidence it would be fine. Instead it's neither.
(This is a good time to mention that it has always bothered that TheMotte has never explicitly endorsed "Victorian Sufi Buddha Lite comment policy", but even if @ZorbaTHut doesn't like that, surely "don't insult people for no reason" is a good norm, since the round up text links to things like IN FAVOR OF NICENESS, COMMUNITY, AND CIVILIZATION and mentions "you should argue to understand, not to win", "Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion", etc.)
Props for consistency (though, to be clear, I'm not arguing the mods are politically biased), but I strongly disagree on your trade off between light and heat. "Trump is a venal, fascist clown" should not be allowed unless (1) required by the point you're trying to make and (2) proactively supported. Having higher standards when people are being insulting seems like required, base-level moderation to me.
We do prefer "don't insult people for no good reason," but public figures are more or less fair game, as long as the post is not just a boo light. "Kamala is an airhead" or "Trump is a fascist clown" are not great comments, no, but we're not going to make a rule against saying mean things about politicians and celebrities.
"I think Kamala is a weak candidate and has no hope of being the Democrat nominee" is clearly an opinion. You are free to challenge it, but if we applied your proposed standard, we'd have to mod anyone who expresses any kind of opinion without providing a link.
Those rules already exist.
Or
Or
Or
Does every statement need a citation? No, but we need some standards to prevent literal for-it’s-own-sake mockery.
I'm open to sincere suggestions about how to improve moderation. So is @ZorbaTHut. But I do not think what you are asking for is reasonable. I am not going to issue warnings every time someone says something mean about a politician. Our norms have developed over time, and they are always evolving, and if you think they are going in the wrong direction, or are failing to maintain the sort of discourse we want, you can make that case, but so far I find your case unpersuasive. You seem to just want me to mod people who insult Kamala Harris. There is a threshold at which I probably would mod a comment. E.g., if someone said "Kamala Harris is a whore" - that's actually a falsifiable statement that would require some evidence, or "Anyone who votes for Kamala Harris is a weak air-head" - that's a very broad boo-outgroup. But calling Kamala Harris a weak, air-headed candidate who has no hope of winning the nomination? It's not kind, but it's an allowable opinion.
I don't know what I've said to imply that Kamala Harris is special at all. I don't want people insulting Trump or Bill Gates or Elon Musk either. It does nothing but lower the quality of discourse here.
Saying Kamala Harris has no hope of winning the nomination is fine (preferably justified with evidence, but I have low standards). "Weak air-headed" seems to contribute nothing but heat.
In any case @ZorbaTHut could you please update the rules to say make it clear that the mods don't mind comments like "Trump is a venal, fascist clown" and "Kamala Harris is an airhead"?
Now you've lost the benefit of the doubt I gave you that you were complaining in good faith.
You said
and
Despite the fact the rules clearly say that you will. Pointing out that inconsistency is not a lack of good faith.
A lack of good faith is when I say I take issue with "Kamala is an air-head" and you say "You seem to just want me to mod people who insult Kamala Harris" (a person, incidentally, that I don't admire).
The rules explicitly ask that you mod comments like this and you're refusing to. I don't think asking for a rule update to make it clear that insulting public figures is tolerated is bad faith on my part. I'm asking for consistency between the rules of this site and what the mods actually enforce.
Alternatively, you're welcome to argue that the rules don't demand that you mod that comment.
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