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 -
Yes, and I'm sure that the Christian just knows that God exists. It's irrelevant, however, if we're claiming to be a space which is neutral. There's not supposed to be a consensus, meaning a question like mine is entirely appropriate. If I were to make the claim that actually, Reddit mods are all conservative Trumpists, would you be here defending me against another person asking me to prove my point?
Yeah, and people on the left have seen a pattern before in how anti-abortion people don't actually seem to care about women despite their words. Regardless, it would be entirely uncharitable to at least not take someone at their word to start with here if they said they really did care.
And your position is unchanged if everyone you know saw the water walker on Sunday? Every Sunday for a year?
If the_donald, their most active sub wasn't banned for spurious reasons, and instead /politics was removed, sure.
Some care about women, some care merely about the murder. On a point like this, I can point you to numbers about those who oppose abortion donating money to causes that help women if its needed.
I again contend that, if true, it would be easier for you to disprove the claim than me to prove it, simply based on what interests the media, and their own biases.
Trust but verify if you trust the person, verify if you don't. I don't trust the analysis of someone on this site when it comes to finding or noting progressive activists anymore than I trust Antifa to find me the fascists.
You're completely missing the point. It was about the use of patterns as a substitute to actually showing evidence.
That's not how claims work. If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to prove it.
Also, what is this "the media" talk? The original point is that moderators on Reddit are progressive activists. Since when does common usage of "the media" also include moderators on an online platform?
If reddit moderators were not progressive activists, the media would attack the website as a right wing cesspit.
If you're going to claim that the media would attack a website that did not have any progressive moderation even if that site had done nothing to attract that sort of attention, then I'd like to see some proof.
I'll grant you some weak evidence in that Scott Alexander was treated that way. But I don't think he's the norm in the least.
Reddit is too big not to get attention.
So it doesn't have to do with progressive activists or the lack thereof amongst the moderation?
If there was a lack thereof, reddit would have more conservative content, and then the media would focus on it. Particularly it would be smeared as full of hate speech, disinformation, etc.
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